Science and Religion Message Board 1-500

Well, how about this, though it's not original (is anything in this sphere?):

Science tries to figure how the world came to look as it does...

Religion tries to explain why.

If the adherents of each stuck to their own fields, we wouldn't have anything to argue about :)

Religion tries to explain why. - Leszek Rzepecki

Science also tries to explain why. Except it doesn't believe in the Holy Easter Bunny.

I would submit that many environmentalists are on an evangelical mission. They constantly use science to justify their moral position.

The "natural" environment is holy.

Nature is God.

The devil is mankind.

Perhaps :) but somehow, its explanations just don't seem to satisfy most people!

...but somehow, its explanations just don't seem to satisfy most people! - Leszek Rzepecki

Not in all cases. No one would dispute the fact that if you jump off a building, you accelerate at 32ft/sec² and smash into the ground. Or that it is impossible to levitate as is proclaimed to be possible (for a hefty sum of money) by the Maharishi cult.

To the average person, it is easier to accept whatever is proffered by religious gurus than what is stated in scientific publications.

And even if science can disprove some fallacy of religious belief (e.g. the case of the Shroud of Turin), most people who have held onto this belief will not accept the truth.

I was thinking more about the "deep" truths and explanations - the "why" of the formation and development of the universe. The scientific investigations (so far) have not found any reason to postulate a necessary role for a caring and supernatural creator. This is truly cold comfort for most people, who have understandable fears about life and death, and desperately hope for some meaning in an otherwise apparently pointless exercise.

I can understand the feeling, even though I don't share it, and accept it as reason enough for the persistence of religion despite the major incursions of science into previously religious domains. I don't expect that religion in some form will go away at any conceivable (to me, at least) point in the future, though I doubt whether present day religious belief will cut the mustard a few centuries from now (assuming people are still around a few centuries from now and that our knowledge increases.)

The essential occupation of science is to explain the explainable. The essential occupation of religion is to explain the unexplainable. But "explainable" and "unexplainable" are not fixed concepts; they change with time. Lightning was unexplainable, but now it is explainable. When the first lightning rods went up in Paris, France, the neighbors sued. The reason for the suit was that lightning was the will of God, and the lightning rod served to circumvent that will, which was sure to bring the wrath of God down on everybody.

The boundary between the explainable and the unexplainable is the battleground between religion & science. As we learn to explain, those who have a fixed religious investment in the matter at hand are going to suffer a crisis of the spirit if their religious truth appears to be falsifed by science. This is the essence of the contest between science and young-earth creationism. There was a time when the age of the earth was not explainable, and the few thousand year Biblical chronologies were accepted without reservation by everyone (at least in Christian Europe). But now that we can and do measure the age of the earth, those with a religious investment in the ultimate truth of a young earth are in crisis. They are trapped between the need for religious truth to be eternal, and the ever-expanding realm of the explainable.

In the end I think the religious will survive by being flexible. Maybe religious truth really is eternal, but we just aren't perfect enough to know what that truth is (yet?).

The conflict between belief in science and belief in God is a manmade one. For some reason, for people to believe in an almighty creator, the scriptures about that creator that were written by man must be true. If the bible (which was written by human beings) says that there was a world-wide flood, than there had to be one or the existance of God is questionable. I see a serious logic flaw here. If a man or group of men make a mistake in interpeting God and his universe, isn't it most likely that those people just made an honest (human) mistake? I mean, maybe there wasn't a world-wide flood. Maybe the Uiverse was created in 20 billion years instead of 7 days. Do any of these things prove that God doesn't exist? No, they just prove that men have made mistakes in the past when it comes to interpreting their universe.

The main difference between religion and science is that science allows for revision of the known "facts".

The scientific investigations (so far) have not found any reason to postulate a necessary role for a caring and supernatural creator. - Leszek Rzepecki

There is a train of thought in ancient Judaism that this universe was created by God but it is not part of his self. In other words, God does not, or cannot interfere with the workings of this universe. This seems logical, since natural laws cannot be violated without upsetting the universe's mode of operandi.

Although I am an atheist, this seems to be an acceptable possibility in regard to the origin of our universe.

When I was little, once my uncle gave me an ant farm - one of those kits resembling a terrarium where supplied ants could build their nests, etc.

Well, before I sent in the coupon for the ants, I constructed an elaborate sand castle in the terrarium. Once the ants arrived and became accustomed to their new world, they constructed nests in various parts of the "castle." Obviously, they must have loved the design. Other than feeding them, I played no part in their lives.

Perhaps this universe was constructed to be an "ant farm" for the pleasure of some higher power(s).

The main difference between religion and science is that science allows for revision of the known "facts". - Michael K. Magner

True, but the Church of Rome, after almost 500 years, vindicated Galileo Galilei.

Perhaps, in another 500 years, the Church of Rome will proclaim the Intel chip to be God.

That's an idea of god I could live with... a rational being bound by the rules. Still, it doen't leave much room for religious practice, and isn't much warmer comfort than no god at all... it still leaves science dominant, and that just isn't going to be acceptable.

Thanks to CNN for the new Message Board, "Science and Religion"

Can science be defined?

Can religion?

Argue? Leszek likes to argue? Nah!

Easter Bunny? Bernhard, you probably don't believe in Santa, either? Infidel!

Carl, if the earth is the Body of God, are you saying we violate God?

Still, unsatisfied?

I agree. Totally. Shrouds of Turin, tortillas turning into the face of Jesus, Buddha turning into a rabbit and jumping into a stew pot to feed the poor, Vishnu having his 9th incarnation as perfect unchanging beings of purity, the unspeakable Tao which everyone speaks about .. but I feel it, I feel it .. it must be real!!

Leszek, are you saying that people will no longer suffer from transient episodic psychosis a few centuries from now .. ?

Does religion have any choice? Or is "flexible religion" an oxymoron?

Epiphany, we hardly know thee... Yet, the Abrahamic religions of the "west" have been largely motivated by revelations to human beings by a divine being. Or so the story goes. It is a recurrent theme in them all that something etheral occurs, miracles happen... people see and hear things. Are these real?

By real, I mean bona fide instances of epiphany.Or, are they minor, tending to major psychotic events occurring only within the mind of an afflicted human being. When Constantine was told in a dream to place upon his battle standard a cross, and that he would win the Roman Empire if he did as he was bid, was it an angel, God, or his Christian mother? Perhaps it was mere temporary psychosis, but the outcome of it changed the world. He placed a cross upon his battle standard, his army, too, followed suit, and he was victorious in his grab for that seat of power. Most importantly for subsequent humanity was the fact that he attributed his victory not to his battle acumen, but to the symbol that is the cross. That is when Rome became Christian, for the most part. Who, but a fool, would argue with a newly crowned emperor?

I resemble that remark... :) Having been very religious many years ago before my scientific training put paid to that, I have to disagree with that assessment, even though I'm sure it's meant tongue in cheek. I think methods of thinking such as religion, and I include everything including scientology and astrology in this term, have had great comfort and utility for people throughtout the ages, and have helped them deal with life and order their thinking. That, I don't expect to change.

However, I do expect religious doctrine to change to accomodate reality as revealed by science, as it has always done. Those religions unable to change, and unable to provide adherents with a realistic model of how to live one's life (and how can they without acknowledging the facts of nature), will die by simple competition and attrition.

I think methods of thinking such as religion, and I include everything including scientology and astrology in this term, have had great comfort and utility for people throughtout the ages, and have helped them deal with life and order their thinking. - Leszek Rzepecki

I agree. Even if people are committed to worship a supernatural object, such a system of belief generally also provides a system of ethics and a worldview that supplies a stable context within which each person can relate himself to others and to the world, and can understand his own significance.

I also believe that eventually the major religions will have to accept scientific truths, even if such truths contradict established dogmas.

To some extent, this issue involves more than that which is explainable or is a matter of belief. For example, the Bible is thought by many to be mythical, yet it explains why death happens, where languages came from, and why humans wear clothing. The Bible reflects what is, and according to those who follow its tenents, what was.

Most myths I am aware of, few to be sure, don't offer such reflections. Science is merely effort applied to ignorance. If there were no ignorance, there'd be no need for science. And lest we forget, our collective effort is applied to elements we did not and cannot create; or put another way, our effort is applied to someone else's "toys." The proclaimed threat to religion is more a function of pride that of scientific endeavor, and condescension of religionists to scientists is more a function of insecurity than of faith.

I did not say the earth is the "Body of God" I said it was the garden of Eden.

In terms of all the life we have ever known this is the most wealthy and perfect place to exist.

We will continue to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge until we have to leave.

We must leave because otherwise we will eat of the fruit of the tree of life and this planet can not sustain creatures who live forever.

So we leave out beautiful planet and go off to the desolation that is the rest of the solar system.

They use to call them the heavens I believe.

Mr Smith :

Now where in the bible does it explain why death happens, where languages came from and many humans do not wear clothing! Sure, there is a tale of the people building a tower to attempt to reach heaven, so god decides to give everyone there a different language so that they could not finish the project. A really rather sad explanation. As for why death happens, just because adam and eve ate of the tree? Also a rather sad allegory but no explaination. Were they to be immortal when god formed them, before he threw them out of the garden? Do we still have the immortallity strands on our DNA?

Your whole post is very thoughtful, and insightful. I can relate to the lightning analogy, personally, right now due to reading the current issue of TIME magazine, which has the special articles on genetics. The new medicines, the curing of diseases, cloning, designer babies, etc. I believe, that man by doing this isn't, becoming God-like, but, like the lightning rod, it does seem that they are doing things, only God could do. Yet God has given us the ability to see these new scientific findings on genetics. He must have a reason:)

Or Science will find out that religious dogma was correct.

Someone wrote that humans were in error, in perhaps writing the Bible. I doubt it. But as humans we are often in error, in interpreting the Bible. So you may be right that some dogmas will adjust in the face of hard scientific facts.

WE may have the immortality strands in our DNA. I read that medically, doctors are mystified, that the human body doesn't live longer, than it does. They say the heart could beat for a thousand years, and our immune system, if not worn out by combatting all the things it has to fight off in our our environment, maybe we wouldn't age.

I heard it said that our bodies are built for long lives, but it doesn't occur.

I can relate to the lightning analogy, personally, right now due to reading the current issue of TIME magazine, which has the special articles on genetics. - Marie M.

(I think you also should do some reading on the topic of evolution, too. It might open your mind.)

What Copernicus and Galileo discovered was never accepted by the Church of Rome for obvious reasons: their discoveries upset the status quo of a dogmatic church. Eventually, however, this church had to retreat (albeit 500 years had to pass) and accept scientific truth.

So far, I notice, the discussion - while frequently interesting - has been rather undefined and grounded in some obvious assumptions. For the most part, "religion" has been totally undefined, but usually assumed to mean some sort of archetypical or generic Christianity. And science has, very unfortunately, been assumed to be 1) "western science", and 2) an sort of archetypical or generic occupation or way of thinking that is factual and/or objective (which many - errantly - assume means "factual" or "actual").

Having been a scientist (a crossbreed of anthropologist and physicist, essentially) most of my life, I understand that bias and naivete. Now I'm willing to go along with (essentially) everyone here and posit the discussion we want to make is about Christianity, and ignore, at least for the while, the great differences between churches, doctrines, theologies, and denominations that exist within the "religion" Christianity. When the (obvious) points of concern are about the issues of origins, and creation versus evolution, and God versus no identifiable source, purpose, or raison d'etre of the universe, that simple assumption will usually work. To date, most of established Christianity has a rather unified and consistent set of theories and hypotheses. They are rather strongly grounded in the Bible, and the translation of Genesis we find in the King James Version. There are some exceptions, but while significant intellectually they are not very significant politically or socially. They are minority paradigms.

The assumptions about "science" are not as acceptable. Few participants, if any, in this discussion (so far) are scientists. They are political and ideological admirers and followers of t

Looks like the interesting (to me) part of your post got truncated :) I hope you aren't saying that only those actively pursuing science or religion (scientists and priests) should speak here, that would be very limiting. I've had over two decades experience in biochemical research myself, but enjoy the input of non-scientists... in fact, without that input and challenge, we're rather wasting our time, I think.

I hope you will not mind that I "moved" my response to your posts on the Evolution board to this board. CNN graciously provided this board where the subjects you raise are on topic. I think we should use it instead of being off topic on the Evolution board.

You may recall that Dave ON recommended that you study some of the more "bizarre implications" of quantum mechanics, and suggested that you read Shrodinger's Kittens by John Gribbin. I can assure you that, while it is not easy, Gribbin does a very good job of explaining those things, and you could certainly do worse. Since I suspect that you will probably not find it opportune to read it, I shall attempt a brief explanation that is not quite the explanation given by Gribbin, but is similar.

One of the consequences of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is that a region of seemingly empty space is not really empty since every sort of elementary particle, together with it's anti-particle, may pop out of space for a brief instant before annihilating with it's antiparticle and disappearing back into empty space.

This is called a quantum fluctuation and these quantum fluctuations are occurring all the time. In most cases, the particle-antiparticle pair are immediately annihilated. But in some cases, this may not occur immediately since the particle-antiparticle pair are annihilated only when they actually come in contact.

One possibility, therefore, for the origin of the universe that has been mentioned is that the Big Bang, itself, may have been a result of a quantum fluctuation in the fabric of space-time. There is, of course, no proof of this, but it does seem plausible and it is sound mathematically. Consider the mathematics of positive and negative numbers, for example. If we add a negative number and a positive number of the same magnitude, we get zero. And what is zero? One answer it that it is the addition of +1 and -1. Another answer is that it is the addition of +3,000,030,002 and -3,000,030,002.

You really ought to read Gribbin's book, Marie.

Actually, Moses did not write Genesis. Bible scholars have been aware that there were more than one author for a century. Look up Genesis in any good Encyclopedia and you will be immediately introduced to the concept of the J, E and the P documents of which Genesis composed. The J stands for Judah and consist of stories from the southern kingdom. E stand for Ephraim and consists of stories from the northern kingdom and P stands for Priestly literature which the priest in the temple combined with the more ancient texts shortly after the northern kingdom was dissolved by the Assyrians.

That is the reason that the tone of Genesis Chapter 1 is so different from Genesis Chapter 2. Chapter 1 is from the P document and envisions a transcendental God whereas Genesis 2 is from the more ancient J document and envisions a much more primitive God. Note that the order of creation is different and even the name of the Deity is different. Also, a multiplicity of authors is the reason for the interweaving of two different flood stories. According to the J document, all the animals were taken into the ark two by two, ref Genesis 6:20. But according to the E document, clean beasts are taken into the ark by sevens and unclean by two, ref Genesis 7:2.

But, again, don't just take my word for it. Consult any good encyclopedia.

If you believe God might allow you to misinterpret the Bible, how can you be so sure he did not allow the writers of the Bible to make similar errors?

I am reading a book by Phillip E. Jonhson, called, "Darwin On Trial".2nd Edition. It's supposed to examine the scientific evidence objectively. Since the author, is no fan of creation scientists, I'm sure I will get some new ideas to consider.

And I guess I should answer your last post on the Evolution board, here.

Who says?

The world we live in. All the structure and logic in DNA, and in Nature. Also FAith. Faith is the substance of things, hoped for; evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1-2. I don't ,obviously ,have any other evidence.

Faith, and the knowledge, that many scholars devoted themselves to compiling the total Bible, over many years. There were several meetings in which they did this process. Also personal experience, though, I realize that is subjective.

The 1st 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses. I believe that the so called different accounts of the flood are to be taken as a whole. One narrative may not include all details, and the other narrative, picks up details, such as 7 clean beasts, and two of unclean beasts.

This answer does address, the question quite well, for now. I will try to read Shrodinger's Kittens; when I get the time. At least I know a resource to look for. Thanks.

Faith is the substance of things, hoped for; evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1-2. - Marie M.

This reminds me of a story I read a long time ago: A missionary was exploring the Rain Forest hoping to get in contact with primitive tribes living there. One day, he confronted such a tribe, quite hostile though, ready to kill him. As several members of the tribe aimed their blowguns at him, he opened his large umbrella in front of him and visually disappeared. This so perplexed the primitives that they accepted him among their midst and worshipped him as a god.

What I am trying to say is that if you Marie, my dear child of innocence, would have been raised as a Hindu, for example, the God in your life, the God you would worship now, would not be the God of the Judae-Christian tradition, but would be whatever god is being worshipped in Hinduism.

So, as you have stated: God IS.

I reply again: Says WHO?

Well, I am aware that the priests in the first temple compiled the Torah and some of the more ancient portions of the Jewish Bible in pre-exilic times although a significant amount was written after the return from captivity. Also, it seems clear that the compilers of the different sections of the Jewish Bible took the very best Jewish literature and, in some cases, at least, edited it quite thoroughly. If one compares the literary value of the works contained within the Jewish canon, and that of other Jewish literature that did not make it in the canon, one finds a tremendous difference in the literary value. Compare Genesis with I Enoch (translated by R. H. Charles), for example.

But I am not aware of any specific "meetings" by the compilers of the Jewish canon. You might enlighten me as to the meetings to which you are referring. (I assume you are referring to meetings with respect to the compiling of the Jewish canon since we were discussing Genesis. The Christian New Testament is another matter entirely, of which I am much less, although somewhat, knowledgeable.

You give no details on why you believe Moses was the author of the Torah, nor did you counter my reasons for believing otherwise. Of course the different accounts of the flood in Genesis is intended to be taken as a whole, but 7:2 does not appear to be merely filling in additional detail that was left out in 6:20. Instead, it appears to be the recording of a second, somewhat conflicting tradition, side by side with the first. Bible scholarship has maintained this to be the case for almost a century.

BTW, I think it might be well to note that while the Bible is a religious book, Bible scholarship is a science. For this reason, with respect to Bible scholarship, the religion of the scholar is usually of little significance. For example, I can not know the religion of the author of the encyclopedia article that you may have consulted since I do not know which encyclopedia you might have consulted. He might be a Catholic or a Baptist, and it does not matter. I can be certain that any well regarded Bible scholar that might write an article in a reputable encyclopedia will report that Genesis had a multiplicity of authorship since this is the consensus of the scholars, and has been for several generations of scholars.

Reason and God? Science as Faith?

The following is imported here, to this board on "Science & Religion," from the "Religion Today" board for general comment.

T. Tatchio (in accord with Kanzeon) wrote in the "Religion Today" board:

No. I'm not writing to an elite group. My questions to you about the relation between faith and reason are quite basic questions.

I'm sorry that I apparently posed my questions unclearly.

I'll try again.

Before re-stating my questions, here are statements from your posts, statements which prompted my questions to you:

(continued next post)

Reason and God? Science as Faith? (continued)

T. Tatchio further wrote:

So, the sum total of your statements cited above raise questions about the relationship between faith and reason. They raise questions about the limits of reason itself after Godel. And, your statements raise questions about reason and science involving what you call elements of "faith."

So what? Where am I getting at by questioning your assertions?

Let me say from the start that I have observed people of faith use Godel in particular, and claims about reason in general, in order to make a great number of widely different claims about the relationship between faith and reason.

I am trying to get at precisely how you understand the particular meaning of your own claims about Godel. I am also trying to understand your own particular claims about the relationship between faith and reason. Thus, I'm not putting you into a category with every other religious person who draws correlations, positive or negative, between faith and reason, or Godel's theorem and faith, or science and faith. I want to understand your own particular claims about th

Reason and God? Science as Faith? (continued, T. Tatchio, Kanzeon, et al)

As a second matter, I want to postpone until later addressing your allegation that reliance on reason in general, and that engagement in scientific thinking in particular, involve what you call elements of "faith."

Specifically, I questioned you about your references to Godel.

That is, specifically, I noted that Godel's theorem has limited scope, and more importantly, that even after Godel, certain basic axioms of good reasoning in science, math, and logic still apply.

Basic axioms of rational thought and scientific reasoning, even after Godel, still include such principles as: 1) rational and scientific claims are still tested for logical consistency and coherence, 2) rational decisions and scientific conclusions are still tested for adequacy, with adequacy defined as giving best explanations for data, 3) Godel has nowhere in rationality or in science dispensed with the law requiring logical consistency as the premier test of logical organization, 4) rational thought and formal science still define the instrumental trustworthiness of any claim as a trust to be vested in relationship to the stated purposes and reasons of any claim, and for some thinkers and scientists, 5) parsimony (ala Occam's razor) is not a priori preferable to 5) novel creative synthesis of theories, 6) experimental advance integrating new and advanced knowledge into prior foundational knowledge, and 7) reason and scientific methods have the consequence of a continual accumulation of new empirical data integrated into new empirical schemata.

These basics still apply after Godel.

So what? Big deal?

(concluded next post)

Reason and God? Science as Faith? (continued, T. Tatchio, Kanzeon, et al)

Again, so what about principles #1-7 in my previous post?

Let's break these principles down as one means of understanding exactly what it is that you are claiming about the relationship between reason and faith in God.

First, I'll readily agree with you, without reservation. After Godel you cannot fully specify rational grounds for your faith in God. But, my questions, below, are not about fully specifying anything, faith in God, or the instrumental use of logic.

My questions ask you just how much you can say.

1) can you offer any statement whatsoever about "God" that you judge merely coherent (not fully logical), or is "God" wholly and immiscibly incoherent?

2) can you offer any statement whatsoever about "God" that you judge shows how "God" gives you a best, or a better explanation for the full range of data you judge relevant about our world, or, is "God" wholly unrelated to all the data you judge relevant to statements about our world?

3) can you offer any statement whatsoever about "God" that you judge to be a statement having any kind of consistent logical organization, or, do you judge "God" beyond all logical organization of any kind?

4) can you offer any statement whatsoever about "God" that you judge subject to the smallest rational test of any kind, so that anyone speaking the languages of science or basic rationality could invest any degree, just any proportion at all, of instrumental trust in your statement?

I want to reserve principles #5-7 from my previous posts for a later time.

Again, Godel is not the issue with the above questions.

These questions survive Godel. I am interested in your particular responses.

Sincerely,

Jim

Jim, I got lost in the detail. Perhaps I could go read the forty or fifty posts on the Religion Today board and have an idea what the heck you are trying to say, but I don't think I want to do that. I do not particularly like the Religion Today board. I must confess that I was impressed with T. Tatchio's comment that:

As an agnostic, I find this altogether convincing.

So what is your point?

Cliff

My point is that T. Tatchio, and other folk who claim to vest what they call "faith" in what they call "God," frequently, not occasionally, but frequently cite Godel.

I cannot be clearer about the fact that I have observed believers cite Godel for dozens of propositions relevant to what they call "faith" in what they call "God."

To people who regularly cite Godel, I judge it fair to ask that they furnish clarification of just what Godel adds to their equations for "faith" in "God."

I simply cannot believe that people who regularly cite Godel cannot understand this simple question. It is not a trick question. It is not fancy question. I'm not being polemical. I'm not being rhetorical. I'm asking a straightforward question.

I say my questions, #1-4, are quite straightforward.

My questions are clean, honest, direct.

I have written three times now, in three separate posts, that these questions, #1-4 survive Godel. For all I care, we can forget Godel, and instead just answer questions #1-4. But, I do suspect that anyone who regularly cites Godel can understand the extremely basic rational elements that survive Godel, and can take a clean, honest, direct approach at answering these specific questions.

Perhaps I need to illustrate my questions with factual examples? I have not done so because Tatchio's arguments regarding Godel have been formal (logical) arguments, not factual. I could illustrate with factual and counterfactual examples, if needed.

Perhaps you are, instead, asking me to respond to your own statement about the nature and scope of agnosticism?

Gosh, you guys! Wake up and smell the roses.

Gödel, or no Gödel.
God or no God.

It boils down to this:
It only is what you believe it is.

Ah, I see. You do not believe citing Godel adds to their argument and when they nevertheless cite Godel in making their argument on faith, it is bothersome for you. I guess my question would be: why are you so emotional in your objection to their citing Godel in this manner?

Is Godel the equivalent of a religious entity to you and siting his name as justification for their faith is a form of heresy? That is about all I can think of to explain your apparent emotionalism? But perhaps I have misunderstood.

Not particularly, although I invite comment on all my comments. My questions are always rhetorical and I never demand an answer to any question I pose. Anyone who wishes can respond to any statement I make or any question I ask, but I demand nothing of anyone. If someone comments on my comments, I reserve the right to respond, or not respond, as I wish.

I'm hardly an innocent child, since I have 2 teen-agers, but I don't take offense to it.:)

Many Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Atheists, convert to Christianity. So just because I may or may not be raised in a certain religion, doesn't mean one will always follow that religion.

BTW, you are persisting in an answer, to "Who Says?" In regards to God IS. But how come you don't worry about the beginnings of life from nothing, and how that occurred.?

As far as WHO SAYS. Everyone one could say it, even Darwin, but like you just posted above, it's what one believes, that makes the difference.:)

Cliff Beale: I took the information from the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, on the authorship of the Pentateuch, Moses was raised in Egypt, and certainly had the ability to write these.

I am referring to The Councils after the New Testament was writen, from a book called Exploring Church History. Also the Works of Josephus.

I disagree. I do not think belief, or disbelief, in those things is justified, and believing something most certainly does not make it so. Actually, most difficult for me to believe is that some people actually are atheist. I personally can not fathom how anyone could be an atheist. Having rejected religion on the basis that there is no evidence to support it, how can one proceed to accept a competing dogma that is equally devoid of favorable evidence?

Makes no sense to me, but then, I do not have to worry about justifying any such thing, having opted for egnosticism :-)

Cliff

You wrote:

No.

I took no issue with their illustrations of the limits of logic. I agreed.

I asked what remaining rational statements they can make about "faith" in "God."

I never stated I felt their claims "bothersome." I said I did not understand.

Emotional?

When I'm emotional, I say stuff like, "I'm ecstatic," or "I'm angry," or "I'm ashamed," or, "I have mixed emotions, trust and distrust, and I feel confused."

I judge it appropriate to respond to emotion with emotion, and to respond to reason with reason. Tatchio made a logical argument. I responded in kind.

Nope.

My "apparent emotionalism"?

Are you reading my aura? Are you psychic? What's your secret for "apparent" emoto-metrism? Are you a clinical psychologist practicing tele-emoto-therapy?

Maybe what you meant to ask goes something like: "hey Jim, I'm doing some heavy psychological projection. I'm projecting my emotions onto you, and I caught myself, so I thought I'd ask you, Jim, how you feel about the questions you're asking?" Maybe this is what you meant?

Or, do you mean to claim I'm totally out of touch with my "apparent emotionalism?"

Beats me.

I was not familiar with the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, published by C.F. Pfeiffer. I am happy with the Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, published by Abingdon Press. With respect to authorship of Genesis, I quote from John H. Marks, Associate Professor of Oriental Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey: "A serious reading of Gen. reveals that the book is not a homogenous work of a single author, for no single author would be guilty of such discrepancies as..."

Also, according to J. Philip Hyatt, Professor of Old Testament, Vanderbilt Divinity School, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennesse: "There are in the Pentateuch 3 interwoven strands of material known by the symbols J, E, and P and one large block, known as D, comprising most of Deut."

I must confess to an error, however. I said J stood for Judah and E for Ephraim. This was incorrect. Actually, according to Professor Hyatt, J stands for the divine name "Jahveh" which is now usually spelled "Yahweh" to accord with its pronounciation, and E stands for the divine name Elohim which was used in the E tradition, as well as the P tradition until after the revelation of the name Yahweh to Moses in Exod. 3:15. This, of course, makes it quite easy to separate the J from the E and P in Genesis. After Exod 3:15, all three traditions use the name Yahweh making the separation of the traditions more probamatic. In the RSV and KJV, the name Elohim is typically translated as "God" and Yahweh is usually translated as "the Lord" or "Lord God."

Of course not, I merely read the following:

and wondered why you were upset that someone might cite Godel and then not respond to your "simple" question to your satisfaction. And then I read:

Being curious, I took a look at those questions and they did not look simple and straightforward to me. Actually, they looked more like cross examination, like: Mason glared deep into the eyes of Lt. Trag: "Can you offer any statement whatsoever about "God" that you judge merely coherent (not fully logical), or is "God" wholly and immiscibly incoherent"?

Trag's eyes took on a deep hue, and from deep in his throat came a slight grunt and then, "Huh"?

That was my reaction to the questions too! :-)

Cliff

Cliff, you're oversensitive.

But, your feelings are your feelings.

I've had a half dozen responses to my questions. Everyone has responded on the merits.

No one else has complained that my emotive content justifies such attention.

In a wonderful little monograph, The Art of Scientific Discovery, Beveridge describes the unavoidable mistake made by those who listen to scientists who are attempting to be clear, concise, even argumentative. The mistake consists in confusing necessary pointed clarity as adversarial antagonism. Even when the two overlap, Beveridge and other scientists have noted that it's impossible for those striving for clarity in scientific discourse to satisfy every listener's peculiar emotional preferences for good style. And so, everyone in the business of public scientific discourse ought cut each other quite a bit of slack for different emotive styles, and instead, focus on content.

You mentioned cross-examination. The University of Chicago "Jury Study" correlates emotive prejudicial reactions against interrogatory style to factors such as ethnicity, income, education, peculiar personal histories, and a few others, so that peremptory (not merit based) challenges to exclude jurors ought be spent on these grounds. Otherwise, common and ordinary jurors are presumed capable and thick skinned enough to judge truth on the merits by discounting emotionally charged rhetoric, and instead by focusing on substance.

Beveridge and the "Chicago Jury Study" point to the same idea. We invest great trust in people by trusting them to discount what they personally judge emotional spin, and by trusting folk instead to address the merits.

I trust that Tatchio can respond to the substance and merits of my questions.

If not, I trust Tatchio will let me know how he/she is feeling,

.. re-posted truncated ending

I trust that Tatchio can respond to the substance and merits of my questions.

If not, I trust Tatchio will let me know how he/she is feeling, and , we'll see what we can do together to re-focus on the ideas and questions.

Cheers.

Leszek:

You said:

Yes, I guess (but have been unable to read in any documentation) these messages are limited. To what length, may I ask? And all my remarks about "science" did disappear into a cyberblach hole. And No, I certainly did not wish to say anything negative about scientists etc. I really want to discuss with all (altho, my poor aging brain is a bit overwhelmed by the many posts (above, and since my own....my this board is racing along...the internet community is just too big...I much prefer the type of world my fiction-author personality believes in...no more than 328 persons... :)...oh yes, I am a bit left behind by such discussions as the Godel sequence). Anyway.

I was trying to make the point that "science" is a many-splintered thing, full of competing paradigms and communities and mixes of doctrines, and that we cannot carry on any easy discussion without just spelling out which type of science/doctrine/belief system we are arguing from or for. And worse, to simply put forth the axiom that "science is the reasoned study of fact and exercise of logic and logical rules, and that "religion" is merely the acceptance of some popular myth and exercise of faith and exegetical rules by someone who is merely a "believer" unwilling and unable to objectively observe and interpret and hypothesize about "real world" data, is to prejudice, if not absolutely conclude the discussion.

No, to have a true dialogue where everyone may learn and might

Leszek:

OK. I think I'm begining to see the light, here...and the acceptable length, and tactic for getting around it. Here's the rest of my effort: No, to have a true dialogue where everyone may learn and might even change some opinion or belief, we have to understand that every scientist has a paradigm that he/she believes in and uses to translate/define natural world data into facts, hypotheses, and theories. Scientists are not super, or supra humans, but merely believers themselves. And as in cultures, bodies politic, or churches, there are popular, predominant, heretic, avante garde and old fashioned, etc, members, groups, parties, etc. WE can assume, probably, that in this current discussion, the "science" group/paradigm we are mostly talking about are the "Evolutionists". But they are VERY far from a homogeneous group. The lines of division among them are very numerous. There are fundamental schisms over macro ev, micro ev, saltative ev, natural selection (yes or no),the blood (hot, cold) of dinos, interpretation of EVERY hominid fossil, origins of birds, of mammals, etc.,the nature (and connection to H. sapiens) of neandertal, the role of genetic mutation, and almost every micrbiological line of research..etc, etc...

Most people don't realize that...and most scientists don't admit it (they want to believe everyone believes their own paradigm, period. In fact, "science" sounds (and looks) just like "religion" to me!

Well, hope this all fits and doesnt "truncate".

I'll try to move along in the next effort.

But how come you don't worry about the beginnings of life from nothing, and how that occurred.? - Marie M.

As I have said it before, there is no difference between an uncreated creator and an uncreated creation. As the creator itself can be a creation, the creation itself can be a creator. In other words, the universe, per se, with its inherent physical laws can be the creator of all things great and small it contains. To believe this is not more preposterous than it is to believe in an uncreated creator.

I personally can not fathom how anyone could be an atheist. Having rejected religion on the basis that there is no evidence to support it, how can one proceed to accept a competing dogma that is equally devoid of favorable evidence? - Cliff Beall

It is not. For example, if the physical universe had been created by God, it would follow there was a time when the quantity of matter was less than it is now, when it was in fact zero. But physics has proven that the quantity of matter has always been the same.

Furthermore, how is it possible that a perfect creator can come up with an imperfect creation? Perfection is an absolute state and does not allow for imperfection. Yet, look at the enormous waste in nature, especially in matters of reproduction, and the trial-and-error method of evolution.

And then, there is the matter with evil. The philosopher Brand Blanshard once wrote:

Now you know why I am an atheist.

Yes, CNN limits the length of the posts to keep the boards manageable... they also vary the permissable length from time to time to keep the site running as efficiently as possible.

If it's any comfort to you, I can't see whether the discussion of Godel is getting us anywhere either - one needs to be something a mathematician even to understand the question being asked, let alone the answer, and I am far from that. Suffice it to say Godel is about the limitations of knowledge, but why this should prohibit us specifically from following scientific or religious paths is beyond me.

I agree with your points about how science is done in practice, it is far from a monolithic structure, any more than religion is monolithic. Perhaps the difference is that no matter which theory of this or that scientists may subscribe to, they will generally agree on what sorts of tests should be applied to see whether one is valid or another. In other words, they are joined in a common method. There science and religion go their separate ways. You won't find a Christian cleric and a druid agreeing on much within their domain, not even methods of knowing :)

grkoski:

The Bible tells us death came from sin. If you can refute this, by all means do so.

The Bible tells us languages come from the event you reference, the Tower of Babel. If you can refute this, do so. (Archaeology acknowledges the remains of this tower, and Josephus references it and gives details not available in scripture.)

The Bible tells us that humans wear clothes due to their shame and cognition of nudity. Do you refute the existence of modesty as relates to nudity, and that this is unique to humans? (Please do better than referencing the fraction of a fraction of a percentage of humans that are off in some deep, dark jungle, or are nudists who deliberately refute sin in the first place.)

I can't let this go... there must have been millions of towers built by mankind over the millenia. Just because one or two archeologists are desperate to identify one or another of these as "the" tower of Babel, doesn't make it so, or make it "acknowledged by archeology". Like the flood myth, this is just another story to explain facts beyond the understanding of the day (the diversity of languages), and probably based on the very mundane and unsurprising fact that some where, sometime, some central civilization on a multilingual trade route built a tower large for that time. Surprise! But hardly a tower reaching to the heavens, that's just natural hyperbole commonly found in stories such as these (are "Fishermen's Tales" familiar?).

As for origins of language, it's a well-known fact that these developed by evolution, and have been classified by linguistics into major lineages and closely-related families. Had they been spontaneously generated by God at some instant during the building of Babel, there would have been no such relationships, and they would all have been equally-related (or unrelated). I recommend Stephen Pinker's The Language Instinct for an approachable, understandable and entertaining introduction to the science of language (though he doesn't talk much about individual languages, per se, just the origin of language, period). He give plenty of interesting references, though.

Personally speaking, I'm agnostic, I've a lot of reasons for that.

One area of concern, is this continual insistance that "it takes a lot more faith to believe in X than in the Bible" - tosh. It's a matter of dealing with likelyhoods (at least for me, atheism is no more homogeneous than theism - the only agreement is there is an absence of belief in God).

Regually people will use this for evolution, physics etc... the difference between these and religion, of course, is evidence. We can support our arguments in science with testable data (generally speaking) - we cannot test the concept of God in the same way. On a basis of probability alone that rather reduces the probability of God.

Just a pedantic quibble - I agree with your point, really - just because you can't test something doesn't affect it's probability, just our preception of its probability. For example, before the advent of nuclear physics, there was no way of testing the Greek atomic theory - that all matter was made of tiny, invisible, and indivisible particles. Well, to a first approximation, the probability of that theory being true (to some extent) was very good, in fact, you could say it equalled 1.0. But there was no way of testing it, so it wasn't a truly scientific theory - at the time :) Now, of course, it is.

Samuel,
Now, now; You know better than that! One can not just go off and propose some untested tenant and then insist that it is true because there exists no evidence to refute it.

What is to stop me proposing that I, and I alone, was created by the mysterious god "Z" for the express purpose of confusing the theology of mankind? Can you refute this?

No, you can not, but it is quite obvious that I made this up. The person who proposes an idea bears the responsibility to establish said idea. This is not a form of politeness, such as Robert's Rules of Order, but an intrinsic check on such silieness as purple unicorns orbiting Cheron.

MR Smith - #61 :

So, the moose that was struck and killed on the way to work this morning (my work, not the mooses work) had sinned! That the 350,000 dogs put to death in the pounds sinned! That the chicken you had last week for dinner sinned! The baby that was born yesterday aftrnoon and died 2 hours later had sinned and therefore died! Jim Bakker sinned and has not died! Jerry Falwell sinned and has not died! Come on Mr Smith. You've got to do better than that!

I'll reference Leszek on the language!

Humans wear clothes mainly due to their mothers and for protection from the cold! Can you refute that most all babies and small children perfer to not wear any clothes at all? That they have to be forced to put some clothes on or get they get punished? Kind of like most of the bible tales, 'Do THIS,.... or be punished!!!' (say that with a deep bass voice reverberating through some speakers)

Humans shed their clothes at the drop of a hat when they so feel like it without shame. If you are ashamed of nudity and cognitive of your nudity, it is because you are ashamed of yourself.

Hi Leszek and Keith!

Hope your holidays went well and the weather's fine where you are.

Les...

One of the interesting details Josephus added to the Babel story is that Nimrod used pitch so as to make the tower waterproof. The intent of this grandson of Noah, acc. to Josephus, was to build a tower higher than the floods that wiped out mankind only two (of Nimrod's) generations earlier.

Keith:

If the Bible consisted of merely a handful of historically verifiable events, I might tend to agree. But at some point, the recurring facts and rich, verifiable historical data begins to place the Bible apart from other works of antiquity. And I am careful to distinguish between clinical or laboratory analysis and validation (the scientist's "repeat and observe" genre) of scripture versus legal/historical analysis, the genre more suited to the review of any work of antiquity.

grkoski:

Specifically, the Bible says that from dust man was made, and because of his disobedience, to dust he shall return.

Why the derision over flippant observations today when the scripture will ultimately overtake you tomorrow? Since you consider the scripture a thing to be taken lightly, prove that you are not made of dust. Prove that you will not one day return to dust. (I trust we can leave out those incredibly few souls who remain mummified (or frozen) to this day. Clearly the process can be interfered with, but the laws of nature stand ready to resume when that interruption is halted.)

I have 16 nieces and nephews. I have observed about 10 of them grow from toddlers to walkers, and it was about that time that without any prodding they became aware of and sensitive to their own nudity. My suspicion is that my observations would prove to be typical.

Since you consider the scripture a thing to be taken lightly, prove that you are not made of dust. - MR. Smith

It is an elementary rule of logic that one cannot prove a negative.

In reference to your assertion that the Bible is historically accurate on occasion, it does not follow that the writings of the Bible were divinely inspired, or that supernatural events actually did occur.

There are numerous ancient texts that provide historically accurate descriptions of their times (e.g. the Bhagavad Gita, or the Nibelungenlied.) And not to forget the myths of ancient Greece and Rome.

PS.: My favorite ancient text is the Kama Sutra, heheheheh!

Bernard Schopper, I have previously been amazed at the depth of your ignorance about what Christians believe about God and the Bible. And I noted that you disagreed vehemently with fellow atheists when they agreed that in fact 'origins' could not be proved empirically either way .. but the tasteless remark at the end of your last post explains everything. When my children went through the stage of thinking that all such references were funny, I understood that it was a stage that they would eventually grow out of .. but ..

When my children went through the stage of thinking that all such references were funny, I understood that it was a stage that they would eventually grow out of .. but .. - Rosemary Behan

When your children will discover what wisdom and pleasures can be extracted from ancient texts such as the Kama Sutra, they "will eventually grow out of" stifled, sterile dogmas of (your) Judea-Christian tradition.

MR Smith - #66 :

Specifically, it does not say that. Please go back and reread! You are inferring two totally seperate verses together.

The simple fact that because 'those incredibly few souls who remain mummified (or frozen) to this day.' exist, proves your hypothesis wrong. Why leave them out, Mr Smith? Simply because they upset your 'existence as proof of the validity of the bible'? You can't just rule them out. If they exist, then 'to dust they have not returned' and someone somewhere made a mistake!

Well, at least I know the assumptions you make in an effort to justify such a belief. As for myself, I agree with Keith Fosberg who said, "One can not just go off and propose some untested tenant and then insist that it is true because there exists no evidence to refute it." I also agree with Leszek Rzepecki who said "Just because you can't test something doesn't affect it's probability, just our preception of its probability." I think these two statements are very insightful. Actually, I think that you and I are out of our league with these two giants. What do you think?

Okay. I hereby refute the idea that death resulted from sin. Do you dispute that the Dinosaurs all died some 60 million years ago, long before you believe Adam was supposed to have lived and eaten that fruit?

Okay, I refute that also. Languages evolve gradually just like any other living thing. It was the isolation of speaking populations and gradual changes to the language of each isolated population that resulted in multiple languages. This evolution was more rapid before the invention of writing, but languages are evolving even today.

Well, I must admit to being an agnostic on why people started wearing clothes. My best guess that the initial reason was for keeping warm during the last ice age. Burr! It was cold back during the ice age (which ended about 10,000 years ago). But like everything else, attitudes evolve. After a while, the wearing of clothes became considered normal, and it became proper to cover one's "privates," as a societal requirement whether needed for warmth or not. In some societies, it is immodest for women to show their face. On the other hand, there were historical societies in which women typically exposed their breasts. I think this is societal in nature.

Actually, the most interesting aspect of all is that God was concerned that Nimrod might succeed. That is why, according to Genesis 11:6, God confounded their language so that they could not understand one another.

Why do you attempt scare tactics such as these? When I was thirteen, those tactics were effective. Now they just make me mad. So I was scared when I was thirteen, and I went forward to be saved because I was scared. But afterwards, I knew there had been no change, that I was still the same old Cliff I had always been. For some reason, I did not have a new spirit like I had been led to believe I would have. I tried twice more, but I could not fool myself into believing that something had happened when it was clear to me that it had not. And so I thought I was doomed, on my way to a burning Hell for almost 10 years, until I happened to chance upon a book that pointed out some of the difficulties in the book of Daniel. I subsequently investigated this allegation and subsequently found other difficulties in the dogma which I had been spoon fed. But hey, I do not have to worry about such malarkey as that any more. I know enough to know you are all wet. So go soak your head.

Well said. Actually, many of the things the Bible says is historically incorrect. The book that contains the most errors of a gross nature is, of course, the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel is literally riddled with error.

Jim,

Even though I don't know anything about Godel, I think that I can see what you're getting at here. The use of Godel to evince a possible falliability to our faculty of reasoning does not ipso facto imply any substantiality to faith. Am I even close here?

Cliff and Marie, (and all interested)

To maybe give you alittle background here, the introduction of the "J" in Yahweh is due to the translational limitations in the assemblage of the Septuagint. The Septuagint was in Greek, and in the Greek alphabet used, there was no "Y" so they mapped it onto the letter "J". When it was subsequently translated to the latin, the newly aquired letter "J" was kept.

Elohim is a pluralistic term meaning divinity, not as applied to a specific singular diety. The name usage changed to the specific Yahweh to denote the one specific or true God. Yahweh mentioned that He would now be known by His name instead of El. El was a predominant diety in the surrounding cultures and semitic peoples, including the Ugarits, who were worshippers of the oft referred Baal. Within the Ugaritic theology, El was the father diety of the other gods. In the Genesis account, Yahweh was El (of the Elohim) and Baal would be considered one of the B'nei Elohim (Son's of God[El]). Rapha and Anak are also believed to be of the B'nei Elohim that have mated with humans to produce the Nephilim and the descendant races known as the Raphaim and the Anakim.

More...

Byron

Hey Byron.

Excellently put. Really.

I'm half sorry that I even used his name, Godel, in responding to the many posts by sincere believers who rightly initiated a Godel thread, and who rightly applied his theorem to reach the judgment that the criteria for logical justifications for "God" cannot be fully specified.

Godel's not too difficult to understand. A good encyclopedia will provide a fair introduction. The main point involves limits on logic, and, limits on logical justifications for mathematics, both of which are scientific issues.

My question asks how much one can rationally say about "God?"

I hope Rosemary cares to develop her thoughts.

Please jump in.

I sure don't have all the answers. I'd like to explore the faith-reason-science relationship.

Byron, I confess in addition to what you already know about my bias, the ontological argument noted by Rosemary causes me significant concern (more later).

Also, I have an impressionistic sense that the basic, gut-level, lifelong question, "how much can we rationally know and say about God?," (and not just Godel's question - "what are the limits?") is a constant question that an impressive number of believers earnestly ask during the full course of their lives of faith.

For those who want to maximize their understanding of the territory shared by science and religion, that's the question to keep asking, for a lifetime. My bias.

What'cha think?

Cheers

(p.s. eglook might like it here; it's a good atmosphere)

Continued... One of the things to note on the authorship of the Pentateuch, is that many of the stories are from a thousand or more years prior to Moses' life. These stories were passed down via an oral tradition of a nomadic people that had contact with several other societies. This could explain why many of the Biblical stories have counterparts within the surrounding cultures and beliefs. The origin, whether from the Hebrews and passed to the others, or picked up from the others and added to the Hebraistic tribes, I don't know.

The Great Flood of Noah is evident in many of the surrounding cultural religions, this would imply the possibility that something did actually occur. The extent of this is still questionable, it could have been caused by the break at Gibralter, unusually high flood waters, or a carry over from the melting of glacial deposits. All of these events could also add to changing weather patterns resulting in prolonged precipitation.

In the event of oral traditions, anyone hear of the "grapevine"? I think that this also explains the incredible longevity of the earlier cited ancestors. I believe that one way to exhault your ancestors would be to increase their ages, especially in a time when old age implied greatness and wisdom. With the coming advent of the written words these ages reduced significantly and when an actual written documentation was formed, the ages curiously fell within the parameters of what we today could consider reasonable life expectancies. Athough the written word is not free of trouble during translation and interpretation, it is more reliable than oral traditions. This would also explain that if it was authored by multiple sources why they don't coincide exactly.

Jim,

Mine too. You also know my bias on faith and that I am a Christian. I think that the Bible is a good source of information as long as you realize that it was penned by men. Education is vital to my sense of faith, looking at the surrounding cultures and their influence to weigh the scriptures. Some are historical excerpts, some on morality and some on spirituality. I think that alot of it is similar to journalistic integrity. That there is a base for it and that some things had actually happened, but it might not have been accurately scribed and reported (without the scribes personal biases as well). This is also why I place alot more emphasis and reliability on the New Testament than the Old.

P.S. I think that Ed might like it too, the discussion on NYT is often uncomfortable and inhospitable.

As for myself, I agree with Keith Fosberg who said, "One can not just go off and propose some untested tenant and then insist that it is true because there exists no evidence to refute it." - Cliff Beall

You need to tell this to those who believe and base their lives on "some untested tenets," derived from a comic book of biblical proportions.

An atheistic Weltanschauung is to me more acceptable on logical grounds.

Hello Mr Smith,

My quibble,

2 generations? Let's see, what were there? 4 couples? Each has, let's be bold 20 kids each - followed by another generation of at least 20 kids (ignoring the fact there is no genetic evidence of this at all!) - that's a world population of 4 or 500... ie. not enough to build a tower, nor the pyramids, nor cities in the Andees or China... all of which predate the normally accepted YEC date for the flood...

Second, what was God afraid of? Was it Nimrod's hubris at building the tower? Then why confound the languages, why not destroy the tower and issue sterm instructions? Why confound the langauges and ignore the fact that a hundred or so generations later we are not only building towers taller than Nimrod could even have imagined, but also we've sent men over 300,000 kilometres into space, and probes physically beyond the limit of the solar system... doesn't this strike you as atall odd?

Cliff Beall:

The bible does say that man was made of dust, and asserts that to dust he shall return. Aside from failing to explain how Moses could have had confidence in the material composition of the human body (dust being about as descript as possible, though arguably 'dirt' might be better), how can my comment be made out to be a scare tactic? That goes to my motivation, which I suggest might be a bit presumptuous on your part.

Bernhard,

The New Testament instructs us to "test all things, and hold to that which is true."

Does this 2000 year-old ethic from a comic book meet your high standards?

Dave ON:

I referred to Nimrod's generations parenthetically due to the longer life span of those early generations, though you raise interesting points for consideration. An additional question I have is whether the longer life spans affected gestation periods. Since the menstrual cycle appears to follow solar patterns, my guess is that 9 months would have been common at that time, too.

As to man's prowesss in space, an ancient Hebrew prophet said that God would ultimately toss the stars aside like a dirty cloth. Aside from the issues of accuracy and inspiration, it remains that no scientist or sci-fi writer has ever addressed the universe on such a scope. They're to caught up in the majesty of the universe to consider the majesty of its creator.

Hi Samuel,
Are you aware of any co-oberating evidence of Biblical lifespans? All arecheological evidence suggests dramticaly shorter lifespans for our forefathers. Is it possible that the lifespans given in scripture are a)alegoricaly exagerated, or b)based upon a seperate scale?

I think most people have a tendancy to lean towards faith or towords reason to cement their worldview. Unfortunatly, faith is a very poor means of gaining knowledge and reason is a very poor way of gaining understanding (or wisdom, if you prefer.)

When utilized in proper measure and due humility (both of which I could stand improvement on!); Faith and Reason can give one a well-rounded and meaningfull perspective on existance.

I find that I need both the intelectual understanding of stellar evolution and the spiritual apreciation for meaningless beauty to truly comprehend the Crab Nebula.

Mr Smith,

We are still dealing with a "known" time frame, however, and given the flood in the period described it does not account for known arcaeological variables.

Nor is there any support for the ages given in the bible, apart from the known habit of many cultures to express great deads in terms of great ages. If these longer life spans (for which there is no evidence) affected the 9 month span then there is no benefit for your arguments sake to allow them. Btw, my 20 kids per couple was actually based on a long life expectancy and hardier women, 20 living kids from one person is pretty heinous as far as I am aware!

Dismiss our prowess in space using any language you like, but Nimrod's tower was not 300,000 klicks high, nor was it outside the orbit of neptune. You haven't provided a rational for why God (who is never changing by all accounts) worry about a tower 100 generations ago, and not about Apollo 13? Either way it suggests that your reliance on this particualar story is deeply and perhaps critically in error.

Anyway, on the subject of the longer ages - we could say that the 4 couples had 100 children each, who had 100 children each - that still only gives us a global population of perhaps 40,000 (and again no evdence for this stance) and this 80,000 had to build the Egyptian pyramids, the Olmic pyramids, and establish cities in China - not to mention building Nimrod's tower. Whilst we have definate evidence of South American cities, Eqgyptian Cities, Chineese cities, we're still arguing over just where this tower was.

Sorry, not exactly convincing is it. (not to mention 100 kids per couple takes a century each and I believe the shorter life spans started after the flood.)

Keith/Dave:

(by now this next post sounds like a broken record to you, Keith...if so, I'm sorry...)

The Bible is an interesting mix of that which can be observed to be so, and that which cannot be observed to be so. It is by faith that I accept that which cannot be observed or tested to be so, allowing of course for literary devices. Having broached that can of worms, I would add that we will differ on where these various devices begin and end, and perhaps what their intended point is (was).

But there is a core theology that stretches throughout the book, from Genesis to Revelation. Without intending to offend Jewish readers, I believe this thread allows the believing Christian a measure of confidence that the spiritual quality of the Bible is indeed inspired, even if many questions remain unanswered.

But my main point in this forum is to assert that Christianity is not intended to be hostile to, suspicious of, or in any way antithetical to the ongoing work of inquiry by the scientific community. Though institutions within Christianity have abused this "trust" in the past, I hope we are beyond that.

Hello again Samuel!
I can definatly agree with your closing, and to some degree; Your opening.

The rich tapestry of our existance requires both the knowledge of the mechanics and an appreciation of the asthetics. The knowledge of the vastness of space-time, as demonstrated by relativity, combined with the wonderous nature of the chaotic twists and turns of the vacume, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics is tempered and expanded by the hope an joy suggested by the omnipresense of a loving God.

There is plenty of room in this universe for Voltair, Christ and Buddah.

Mohammad Nasim

You wrote on the subject of evolution and God:

A few believers in God argued that they could not fully justify logical criteria for evaluating the term "God." Rosemary responded by furnishing some rationally plausible grounds for belief in "God."

Fair enough.

Some human social groups are cannibalistic. Some human groups have practiced infanticide. Both cannibalism and infanticide have had religious components.

The evolutionary record is inconclusive regarding cannibalism and infanticide within phylogenetic lines.

Let's say your points comport generally with the evolutionary record.

Then what?

(concluded next post)

Mohammad Nasim

(continued from previous post)

Bold statement.

Mohammed, let's set aside the series of inferences that leads to you "God."

Could you spell out how any one of the types of changes, a) - d), might not be compatible with another?

What does incompatibility mean?

For example, would you judge the b) "breeding habits" of praying a mantis incompatible with the c) the "feeding habit" of a praying mantis if you knew immediately after copulation, the female bites off the head of her male partner?

For another example, if you knew that the d) "social and environmental attitudes" of Mayan, or say ancient near eastern Canaanite tribes included religious rites requiring child sacrifice, then, how would you interpret the evolutionary value of the religious practice of child sacrifice?

How does incompatibility work. What does it mean?

continuing on:

the theory that "heat" will take water up to 212 F (or thereabouts) and "cook" those potatoes. After all, too much scepticism can be totally crippling. Too little can be, as well. Especially at the "higher" end of our intellectual and believing activities (read "science" and "religion", or something like that).

A couple of years ago, I decided to apply this belief of mine to the Bible. Actually, the Bible, I had learned, is built upon prophecy (prediction). Many times the believers are told to test the Scriptures and see if they have predicted the truth, even the outcome of history. That, indeed, is the test that Jesus met -- He fulfilled a ton of prophecies, large and small, scattered throughout he Old Testament. Anyway, back to the subject.

Having long been a true believer (and researcher into, and teacher of) in Evolutionism, I had a real problem with Genesis 1 and 2, the "Creation Account". I had scoffed and ridiculed it as much or more than almost anyone. Indeed, I took many a young college student and converted him or her into an Evolutionist too. And I think I even added a few useful extensions of the paradigm, or its sister paradigm Ecology, in my time. I really was a true believer ...

So when I decided to put Genesis 1&2 to the test I had to clear my mind of some serious prejudices. But how many? I didn't think I could actually deny the essential fossil and geological records. While I, myself, had debated time scales and datings, some of the grandiose fantasies about dinosaurs colorings and vocalizings, and that there were undoubtedly many populations of hominids stretching (to all reasonable appearances) out into a long prehistory, I pretty well believed the essentials of the prehistory, at least that there is one, and its partially preserved in the geological and fossil "records". I also accept most of the theories of physics, astronomy, and such. I'm a scientist, practically by birth, and certainly by nurtu

Sorry to be so long winded, but...part 3:

As I was saying, I'm a scientist, practically by birth, and certainly by nurture, and fairly mainstream, though more cross-disciplinary than most, and perhaps vulnerable to the old criticism "jack of all trades and..." So I wasn't sure exactly how clean I had to wipe the slate (of my mind). But I was ready to do whatever. After 50 years of hostility, I was going to give the Bible another FAIR hearing. You Bet!

Well, my ignorance was pretty much one sided, I decided. I'd best start out studying the Genesis Scriptures. Wasn't hard. 30, or maybe 60 verses. But, I soon realized, as I read first the oldest established Bible, the King James, and then the later ones, like NIV, etc., I wasn't working with raw "data", but someone's conclusions about the original data, their interpretation into "facts". I searched every version (and wow, there are many) and found that while all closely mimiced the first (KJV), there were serious differences, and occasionally they hinted at some real revelations (revolutionary ideas). And often at the point of some key issues, from the perspective of a scientist who felt the basic story about the history of the universe, and earth, and life, was being correctly set out. Like there really were dinosaurs, they were very important (dominant on the political scene!), and neither a billion years ago, nor only ten thousand years ago. They once existed, and we at least had a fair idea of when, at least relatively. Relative to other species in the plant and animal history, and relative to the planet's history. There were lots of little details I felt the need to get straight. So, I went after the basic data, not the popular interpretation on them (a la 1600 AD, essentially). I went into the Hebrew. That was akin to digging up fossils. In very tough ground. But, you know, the exercise was really very much like a paleontological dig. Like the digger, I had a pretty good (preconceived) idea

Part 4 (getting embarrassed, here, :))

of what I was looking for (see I was still biased toward the "science story"), and eventually I began to see familiar shapes, however well disguised or mangled or buried by 1600's English and culture.

Well, cutting to the chase. No one, NO ONE as far as I can see, has ever really read that account with open and experienced (knowing) eyes. Dinosaurs were unheard of in 1600. The Big Bang was not even a dream. Nor were the expanses of the galaxy. Or the nature (and speed limit) of light. No one thought it necessary to distinguish grass from, say, algae. Nor flying insects from flying birds. And "genetics"? Say what? The translation was of a virtually extinct language, into a, should we say "primitive" (in "science", anyway) cultural setting more interested in literature and the faith of illiterate flocks. To my eyes, the verses began to emerge as a shocking outline of a picture VERY similar to the picture that "science" is drafting today. There is no time scale (contrary to popular opinion, and the mistaken efforts of the Bishop Ussher) in Genesis 1&2. No anchor in time, at all. (And before you jump on the 6 "days", go study the Hebrew lexicon with an OPEN mind) And the "theory" of Genesis is that God created, rather than "nature" evolved, it all. There are the two essentials that I had to give up to make the study, and test the Bible. I didn't have to give up much else (outside reliance on Hebrew translators, etc). And what I found was almost, to my understanding, a set of prophecy, or testable hypothesis. 3500 years ago, a description of the origins of the universe and earth and life forms upon it, was set down in writing. And it was accompanied, by the way, with a belief that to alter even one character in the manuscript could have terrible effects so it was copied in incredible care and precision all 3500 years. And today, excepting the time frame and the creating mechanism, it is an incredible match wi

THIS is the end (part 5 ... :( )

an incredible match with the "accepted", "scientific" description. It is extremely brief, yes. More like a table of contents (chapter titles) than the textbook. It includes some explicit info about genetics and speciation (or not, depending on "level" life forms). It includes some remarkable hints (that get more substance in other places) about even such things as the "Big Bang", and cosmological issues. And, the dinosaurs are in there, right in the proper place!

So, since I've eaten up at least 2 posts' space, I'll end my essay with the suggestion that everyone needs to keep an open mind, and a balance in methodology (like, work with data, and all of it that's available), and honestly discuss theories and conclusions on an even plane, not talking down from one pinnacle or another to an opponent (or opposing belief system) they think is in a pit!!

I'll be back. I hope. Russell H

Russel, one of the mistakes I find people often make, especially with thinking about how good some of the Bible actually is, is that like many of us; we assume primative (in this case technologically speaking) means stupid.

Yes, there are many astute observations recorded in the Bible. The Greeks made many also, the Druids who built Stonehenge nearly 3000 years ago managed a degree of precision when it came to alignment which took us until now to spot.

However, there are bits in Genesis especially in the ordering which are easy to decide whether fact of fiction...

I've no problem with theism in general, if I were pushed I'd say I was an agnostic theist - being pragmatic that is. I am not prepared to rule out the idea of a God, and I certainly believe that there could be a being to whom we could relate to as a diety. That's very different to a Judeo-Christian God, however.

It is fine to read "science" into the bible. That's not to say that there isn't science in there - it's also fair to say there is a lot of myth and made up stuff too. Don't fall into the trap of reading modern observation into documents where it does not apply.

Yes, we can say that "Let there be light", is the Big Bang [not that we can say 100% that the BB occured ;-) ] - however, in Genesis the lights in the sky came after the land - we know with a high degree of certainty this is not the case. Land animals in the wrong evolutionary placing etc etc... It was a good guess, but, I fear nothing more than that.

I came at it the other way. I started out fairly hardline Christian, I started applying the standards I was taught to the bible and started getting shocked by the results.

As they say, there is nothing worse than a convert!

I have read the posts on this board and find them very interesting. Forgive my presumption for posting observations honed through a long life and considerable experience as a scientist (physicist), a religious scholar (in several languages) and a practicing psychologist. I think good exchange may be had here!

I, first and foremost, am a Christian in that I choose to believe in Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I practice daily the One Law he presented as fulfillment of the many laws. I understand this to be a personal choice and moral imperative, not a 'fear' reaction. Even if I could (or wanted to) force every human being on the planet to profess my beliefs, they would be no more true than if I were the only human who believed. So I don't bother saving anyone's soul but mine.

I also recognize the physics of agreement between scientific discoveries and holy writ, but I am willing to admit this agreement to be all in the point of view (thus interpretation).

And I know that while religion is primarily a political construction - so is eminently corruptable - faith is a psychological requirement of the human condition. Even non-faith, passionately argued by atheists who wish to convert us all to their point of view, qualifies as faith and religion by definition.

Now I'll stop before I reach the word-limit!

Does this 2000 year-old ethic from a comic book meet your high standards? - Cliff Beall

No. But congratulations, nevertheless. You made this atheist actually go out to buy a copy of the Bible. Now here is what I read on p.4:

There is no mentioning on these pages that Eve ever bore females, and even then, it would have been incest with devastating consequences from the genetic point of view.

A long time ago, as a photojournalist, I have visted the hinterlands of the Bible-belt, photographing the pitiful results of decades of incest that has been practiced there. It was not a pretty sight.

So, since incest was seemingly condoned in the Old Testament, shall we behold it since it was true?

A question for participants - What is Evil, and where does it originate?

I wish to get some idea of participant views about whether evil is considered a specifically human trait, or is a more general consequence of duality. Also, I wonder if evil can be viewed as a psychological condition (inherant or aberrational). Perhaps some believe there is no such thing as evil, and that if murder were not so demonstrably detrimental to community relations, whether it might be viewed as perfectly acceptable behavior.

Just a conversation-starter, relevant to the subject of the board and interesting to explore in that context.

Russell Husted: all posts.

I couldn't agree with you more, though you have stated it more clearly, than I could. In Genesis, it states that each creature and plant were created after their "kind". I didn't catch the implication of that small word, until after DNA and genetics knowlegde was made more common knowlegde. How in the world could have men in 5,000 to 6,000 B.C. known or even guessed to write such a thing. They had no knowledge of genetics. Of course God does, and he gave them terms to write which are accurate, yet simple.

In spite of what evolutionists LIKE to SUPPOSE, no gene adapts beyond it's inherient capacity, mutations cause defects, or problems that don't enhance life or reproduction. The idea that a fish becomes a mammal is not proved out by genetics at all.

But none (like "physics has proven...") should ever be canonized into "TRUTH", or REALITY". - Russell Husted

I suggest you jump from a ten-story building and you will realize (before experiencing) the TRUTH and REALTY of the gravitational force.

Greetings, Bernhard Schopper! How refreshing that you purchased a Bible for purposes of engaging in this forum! Your post concerns the obvious inconsistencies in the Genesis accounts (drawn from 2 separate original source manuscripts, in reality, from differing tribal traditions).

Sorry, I am probably not the person to come back at you with rabid insistence that Truth is in the translation rather than in the meaning. I have little patience with Bible thumpers who ignorantly contend King James personally wrote the book, and have never even heard about Hebrew (and who would be shocked to think Jesus spoke Aramaic).

But I will tell you I highly suspect the life-loop (a mobius strip rather than a wheel) was already well underway when Adam and Eve were booted from the "garden." In this, perhaps the book, being essentially tribal, speaks of the creation and fall of "human beings" in the same context that American Indian tribes and aborigines consider their tribed to be "the people" or "the human beings." Would this make sense to you?

Hi Joy, interesting question, regarding Evil.

I see it as part of human nature, and a result of some type of sin; such as greed, envy, hate, that if unchecked will cause actions to reflect the attitude. As a Christian also, I know that there is an Evil which is in this world, called Satan. He's an evil force which rules in the material world. He doesn't rule the spiritual world, but he functions in a spiritual capacity.

I'm sure most posters are familiar with this view.

Joy

My Joy.

Do you load your clients into the Stanford Linear Accelerator, hyperaccellerate their component particles of consciousness into engramatic panpsychic collisions, and after Fechner detect the alpha moment of original spiritual creation, hearing those collided psychic particles scream in glosollalial ecstasy, interpreted by your multiple linguistic skills as, "oh god, oh god, oh god!"

Welcome aboard ;).

I'm definitely going to take you on regarding your claim that atheism involves "faith."

Nonsense!

Such a claim amounts to special pleading. Certainly, fideists abound these days. But, to insist ipse dixit that atheism necessarily involves any fideistic component is utterly forced at best, and fanciful special pleading at worst.

I'm busy now. But, like Arnold, "I'll be back."

Let's play.

Cheers,

Jim

My greetings to Marie M. as well. I agree that the genetic code, so brilliant and yet so simple (almost like zeros and ones which make these infernal machines do such nifty things like post here) is self-limiting to species. Mate a horse and a donkey to get a mule, and that mule is sterile. There are no catabbits or racopossums (though we may eventually turn off the limiting catalysts to invent such things).

I also subscribe to the essential truths passed through 6,000 years unchanged, many of which are just recently understood (dimly).

Before the TEN Commandments were written by Moses, Incest was not forbidden. All of Adam and Eve's children were not recorded, obviously. I Don't know of anyone who knows the exact answer. He must have married a sister. Agree, genetically not good.

I'm sure you will find lots of good questions to ask>:)

But I will tell you I highly suspect the life-loop (a mobius strip rather than a wheel) was already well underway when Adam and Eve were booted from the "garden." In this, perhaps the book, being essentially tribal, speaks of the creation and fall of "human beings" in the same context that American Indian tribes and aborigines consider their tribed to be "the people" or "the human beings." Would this make sense to you? - Joy Busey

Not really. Because every time I read some stuff concerning the Bible, someone has a different opinion of it. Some say, the Bible needs to be taken literally, others say it's anyone's guess what the book's meanings are. Not very scientific.

As for my part, I believe the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fairy tales. Many cultures have their own version of such tales.

...He must have married a sister. Agree, genetically not good. - Marie M.

If he had indeed, mankind would not have survived. The Hapsburgs practiced incest for a hundred years before most of the offspring became insane and the practice was stopped.

What I victims of incest I have encountered in the hinterlands of the Bible-belt were atrocities committed only during a time-span of decades - physical and mental deformations you would not even display in circus freak shows.

Marie, thank you for the greeting, and for posting your view of evil as a flaw in human nature. I think this is true, but would cite Pride as the fundamental seat from which it springs. Before we explore that in depth, I'd like to see the question addressed by some who do not share this view.

Jim - this is going to be fun, I can tell! Thank you also for the welcome to this forum. It was the Los Alamos accelerator, linear rather than toroidal, and fully gleeful in its creational phaselock exclaimations of "MORE!!!" Plasmatic interactions being, above all else situational (puff, pant, isn't reproduction fun???), that last incredibly charming quark was just a chip off the old meson...

And not only that, but they had to shut down the holy machine during rush hour to protect the car-poolers who kept getting neutron-activated and then going home to beat their wives for no reason. Pity.

Scientists have determined that all humans came from onecommon female ancestor. How does that make the initial genetic problems, ie incest as neccessity any different, then in the Genesis account?

Bernhard - Are you contending that the entirety of the collection of manuscripts known as the Bible are "fairy tales," or just those portions dealing with "inspired truth" which may indeed be legends relating to prehistory? Do you subscribe to the belief that mythology in all its forms is merely fanciful daydreaming, or that it contains psychological underpinnings relative to the actual (genetic) wiring of the machinery we use to experience existence in a duality-based creation?

And by the way, that chip off the old meson was most definitely a product of incest between like-bodied plasmoids...

Marie - You are right about the biblical geneologies. All are recorded through the patriarchal heirarchy, most via only the firstborn son. Seems the tribe in those days rebelled mightily from the aboriginal custom of passing lineage through the mother. Which, if you think about it, makes a lot of sense in the context of that human nature you mentioned. You never really know who the father is (until recent genetic testing), but there's never a question about who's the Mom!

Berhard - I guess Newtonian physics, steady-state universes, "Venus is Not a Protoplanet" and "there is no evidence to suggest diet in any way effects human health" (AMA, 1982) are what you consider to be scientific absolutes?

I am new to this message board. I just have to say that religion is a matter of belief. Science is a matter of evidence and proof. Both serve the function of establishing a framework upon which to examine the underlying order of the Cosmos but never twain shall meet without degrading each tool through the incorrect interpretation of scripture or the corruption of the scientific method. The amalgam of the two (creationism) is merely humankind's illfated attempt at salvaging an anthropocentric world view which has reigned in one form or another since establishment of the early church and Ptolemaic cosmologies . Current reasoning in quantum mechanics (the "seamless whole" and Bell's Theorem) relate the fact that the universe would proceed in its development if insignificant organisms living on the third planet orbiting a rather ordinary G5 class star which revolves at 2/3rds the total radius of an ordinary spiral galaxy which is one in an inconspicuous local group of galaxies within a ho-hum galaxy cluster, etc... existed or not. An observer is not required to formulate the structure of the universe through the collapse of wavefunctions during the processes of measurement. Philosophically, a tree falling in a forest does make a sound even if there is no one around to hear it.

One other issue relates to our conception of God. If say whales or dolphins evolved to develop intelligence sufficient for not only self awareness (which may already be present in higher mammals) but abstract thought, and the symbolic use of nonauditory language for communication, do you believe that the whale or dolphins deity would resemble another cetacean or a human being? Additionally, if the Cosmos has nurtured at least one other extraterrestrial civilization capable of thought, imagination, and reasoning, would their deity look like a human being also? From Genesis, man was created in the image of God. However, maybe it was the other way around.

Now the AMA is learning what mother always told us, that diet is one of the most important contributors, to health, and fighting disease. Good nite for now.

Welcome, E.C. I am also new here tonight, looking forward to stimulating exchange.

I find your statement - "From Genesis, man was created in the image of God. However, maybe it was the other way around" very perceptive. From your postulations of self-awareness in varying critters (mammals as well as little green folk), and your speculation that their god would be conceived in their own image, you have nailed a conundrum.

I would ask if this "image" paradox might then be considered entirely subjective to the observer, and what this means to you. Our software tells us the symbolic meaning of the word "image" is specific to form. Yet the Hebrew word is more ambiguous than that, and can signify another concept entirely.

It has been suggested that the certain "universalities" exist within the manner in which people of disparate cultures who observe unexplainable phenomena interpret the meaning and cause of the events. It may be that a certain "hardwiring" is evident in the way we process information and interpret its ramifications. The very notion of deities can be viewed as humankind's desire to believe in something greater than themselves and it knows no cultural or historical boundaries.

I am in no way familiar with the connotation of the term image as it applies to God in the original Hebrew. The connotation may be very strict (man is a physical replica of God) or liberal (man is merely a corporal being who is similar to God in certain unknowable ways). However, this conjecture is probably better left to those who have examined the theological concepts concerning this issue. I have not.

Uh, oh. Everybody had more interesting things to do, and I'm still here. I've enjoyed meeting each of you, and look forward to speaking with you again.

BTW - the other concept would tend to suggest that it is the impulse to know God (there are other names for that impulse, too) which is the implanted "image" of God. If Bernhard is correct that he has no psychological predisposition toward a conceptualization requiring faith, I may be closer to truth in my speculation that not all humans contain the "image" than even I suspected!

E.C. - You've pegged it again, by Jove (oops, isn't that a god?...). My main problem with "religion" and "religiosity" is the very dynamic you've noted. Interestingly, I've noticed the very same dynamic at work in science. Wonder why?

True. Therefore, a literal translation of Gen 1:1 would be: "In the beginning, the Gods created the Heavens and the Earth." I do not know specifically where I read that, but I understand it to be true. I do not know why this was modified into the singular form in the KJV. I was aware of the Ugarits from the book "Lost Languages" by P. E. Cleator, which happens to be my all time favorite book. (It contain the notes on Daniel I earlier mentioned.)

It is my understanding--I am not sure from where--that the name "Baal" was often used by some writers of the Bible to denote competing Gods of other peoples in the region. Instead of specifying the actual name of the competing God, the name "Baal" is sometimes substituted.

Well, if you read the Book of Enoch (I Enoch), the main characters in that enterprise appears to have been Semjaza and Azazel. In VI:3-4, we read, "And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed and I alone shall have to pay the penalty for a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.'

I would be interested in your source with respect to Rapha and Anak?

Good question.

Sorry. The phrase you used: "...the scripture will ultimately overtake you tomorrow," sounded remarkably like, "Be sure your sins will find you out," and "You can not hide from God on the day of Judgement," both of which I often heard as a child in church, and I can assure you I knew precisely what they meant.

However, if you will tell me specifically that this was not your intent, I will back off. And, in case you were offended by the Johnny Carson quote I used at the end of my little tirade, I apologize for that also. It was a failed attempt at humor that I now agree I should not have used, regardless how I felt at the time.

The word of God may be perfect and it inspired the writers of the Bible through divine insight. The problem is that human beings are very fallible indeed - even divinely inspired ones. Further misinterpretations may have occurred over the centuries during the translation of the original Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate, early German versions and finally the King James. The difficulty with religious interpretations of events is that there is very little that can be done in terms of error checking. Going back to the original scriptures leaves you with the same controversy generated in the translation of important verses which cannot effectively be discerned without doing the impossible i.e. asking the Apostles and Saints directly what they meant when they wrote a particular verse.

Science on the other hand is also flawed in that it attempts to devise a theoretical framework upon which to examine the underlying order of the universe. Certain measurements, and mathematical formulations may be exceeding difficult or impossible to make. The best that science can do is attempt to model processes which occur in nature with the information available. Some models are as good as exact replicas - others are as crude as chalk drawing. Yet in some instances, no models exist at all to explain certain events. Unlike religion, however, science does have the benefit of error checking in the form of peer review and experimental verification. Although science is a relatively crude tool, it is the best one we have if we ever wish to gain a better understanding of the manner in the universe operates.

Scientists have determined that all humans came from onecommon female ancestor. - Marie M.

This is a false statement. "Lucie," as they call her, was one of many females of her tribe to produce offsprings. "Lucie" was not Eve.

Interesting.

No problem.

Good, good!

Okay Russel, please answer these two questions if you wish:

Do you agree with me that Genesis 2:19 indicates specifically that after God created a man, all the other animals, male and female, were created, and brought to the man to be named, and then finally, according to Genesis 2:22, God made a woman as his final act of creation?

How does that correspond with the fossil record and "the picture that "science" is drafting today"?

It doesn't. That is why creationism fails utterly as a viable framework.

E.C. - Yet more astute observations. If we were both to concede the imperfection of the worldviews, I'd be willing to bet we'd find that Pride I previously mentioned to be at the root of all the animosity. How then would science fundamentally differ from religion (as opposed to faith)?

I suppose if I had to pick one fundamental difference is that religion and faith assume a special place for humanity in the grand universal scheme based on his relationship to God who created him/her and the cosmos.

Science in its truest sense does not assume that humankind is special relative to the rest of the universe. It demotes humanity from stewards of the earth to merely a primate that has developed intelligence. In no way is this demotion designed to denigrate humankind's value but rather it hints at our uniqueness and rarity in the universe.

Are you contending that the entirety of the collection of manuscripts known as the Bible are "fairy tales," or just those portions dealing with "inspired truth" which may indeed be legends relating to prehistory? - Joy Busey

Now, that I finally had a chance to peruse the Bible (am obliged to Cliff Beall - but not really grateful for it, since I could have spent the time reading Ludlum's latest novel, or watched a TV episode of Ally McBeall (?sp, heheh), I would say there is nothing in the Bible (of what I have read so far) that impresses me.

Let's go back to primitivism. In (very) ancient times (even before the Bacchus, the God of Wine, was created by fun-loving alcoholics of the Roman Empire) man had to come up with explanations of natural occurrences such as this god's existence and natural phenomena. Being of limited intelligence, man concluded then, that there were one or more "higher beings" responsible for such actions.

I don't recall how many of such "higher beings" were part of Roman mythology, but there were enough.

So what difference does it make if you say there is one "higher being" or "many higher beings" (as in Hinduism, for example), that make up for the Weltanschauung

It only is what you believe it is.

Geez, Bernhard. Go ahead and make me jealous! I had to leave that Ludlum masterpiece at my mother's over Christmas, may never see it again!

How far have you gotten in your reading? I ask because the Jews have a genius for writing history, and a great deal of the book is the best ancient history ever written. If you're into such things, the psychology is also genius even if you'd argue its holiness.

E.C. - Perhaps our rarity and uniqueness (thus far not publicly challenged by ET) is more meaningful than you might suspect!

Fundamentally, man is no more intelligent now than he was during the Pax Romana and centuries before. The difference lies in a fundamental shift of the way in which phenomena were viewed. The scientic method essential for the error checking had yet to be fully developed although the classical Greeks foreshadowed its formulation with the work of Democritus, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Eristarchus, etc.. However, the divinely inspired verses naturally occurring dichotomy exists with many of us even to this day.

The monotheism of Abraham marked an essential shift in not only the concept of divine authority but in the manner in which daily events were interpreted. It is not surprising that the notion of free will developed as a concise philosophical concept around the same time Abraham promoted the JudeoChristian monotheism. Predetermination and fatalism prevailed prior to the advent of monotheism and is directly correlated with the world view typically associated with polytheism.

Ouch! Bernhard, you incorrectly ascribed something MR Smith said to me. I did not say: "The New Testament instructs us..." It was MR Smith who said that. I suggest you re-read this post:

MR Smith - Tuesday, 01/12/99, 7:06:46am (#79 of 95)

MR addressed me and then quoted me and commented further before addressing you and making that statement. I am totally innocent of the charge. I would never make such a statement as that, and please, please do not continue to repeat the heresy. If you do, I will suggest you go soak your head.

Would we still be unique if ET does call one day using the 21-cm hydrogen line frequency in a broadcast of prime numbers? How would an extraterrestrial civilization of most likely superior technological development be incorporated into the Christian world view?

I forgot to mention that the monotheism of Abraham would also serve as a basis for the development of Islam.

E.C. - I look forward to finding out how ET will revolutionize religion in general, mostly because I believe it needs revolutionizing. I figure it'll cause human beings to reevaluate their comfortable assumptions, pat presumptions, and maybe even rein in their overweaning Pride. I have never been of the opinion that God was necessarily limited by creation in any way. But that, of course, is predicated by "God" in that sentence, isn't it?

Russell Husted: Thankyou so much for your posts, please don't worry about the length, if it is boring anyone, they can zip through to the next. I actually took a year of Hebrew, but found it extremely difficult to ingest, which says it all for my intellectual abilities I suppose. However, after reading your post, I would be very interested in reading a good translation taken directly from the Hebrew, can you recommend one?

Joy, welcome. I don't think I'll have much to contribute to these discussions, the intellectual abilities of you all are quite daunting, but I'll enjoy reading.

I tend to think that such an event would precipitate at least some panic in much the same way an errant poisonous snake taking up residence near a watering hole would rattle our neolithic ancestors but I hope we don't go as far as embarrassing ourselves with the foolishness that pervades current UFO fanaticism. Till tommorrow, good night.

Bernard Schopper

This is a false statement. "Lucie," as they call her, was one of many females of her tribe to produce offsprings. "Lucie" was not Eve. Bernard Schopper

Marie is referring to mitochondrial DNA which has been found to be common to women all over the world .. meaning that we are all descended from the one woman that scientists refer to as mt. Eve. Through the mutation rate, they estimated that she orginated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. However in Science recently, a new study found errors in that mutation rate and suggested a date for mt. Eve of only 6000 years ago. Of course this is very recent and may yet be disproved, but it certainly made me think!!

Hello to you, Rosemary! I make no real pretentions to intellectual stuffiness, I just like big words! Some of these guys are way out of my league as well, but have deigned to speak with me. Isn't this media a nifty tool?

Oh, and a post script to your last post, E.C. (goodnight!) - Panic? You mean MORE than simple milennium madness? Surely you jest...

Joy, nifty tool doesn't really do it justice. I'm from New Zealand and have never previously had the opportunity to join in such discussions. Not that we're nitwits here, Rutherford was ours for example, and one of the chaps who worked on mitochondrial DNA, but we're small.

New Zealand, eh? My husband and I have a date on a boat in the harbor at Christ Church next New Year's, but still haven't figured out how we're going to get there! A lovely place, I hear. I am in the southern Appalachians, which I find to be friendly mountains. Apparently so do many of a spiritual bent, with Billy Graham living just over the ridge in Montreat (Presbyterian town), his training center in Swannanoa, and the Baptist's Ridgecrest in between.

I must bid good night, Rosemary, as my eyelids are getting heavy - yet another gravity-related phenomenon. I hope to see you here when next I have time!

E.C.

Your claims are sheerly assertive:

This is wholly assertive.

There is absolutely no consensus that Abrahamic traditions reflect decided monotheism insofar as polytheistic features remain evident in the record of the biblical texts.

More, there is considerable question whether so-called Hebraic monotheism achieved any novelty at all, or whether it borrowed from Egyptian monotheism.

With respect to a "shift" in the concept of divine authority the textual record too is unclear. Comparative studies in religion (after Eliade) assert that "daily events," and the full roster of what the ancients judged the "natural world," amounted to objects (rocks, stars, calendar cycles, agricultural planting, harvest, and so on) upon which any ancient human might attribute what you call "divine authority."

Your assertions are just that: sheer assertions.

At worst, you may be data mining the ancient near eastern texts to support a idee fixee without acknowledging competing interpretations hotly challenging what appears to be your preferred preconceived ideas favoring monotheism.

It's not clear the Hebrews ever achieved any monotheistic consensus: ever. Period.

Polytheism, magical thinking, confusing multiple "theophanies" competed hotly.

You must data mine the ancient texts and posit your version of monotheism. Again, it's assertive.

More, from the near pre-Christian era, it's undisputably clear that New Testament sources were significantly influenced by Platonic, neo-Platonic, Aristotelian and an immiscible motley crew of other social, economic, and philosophic influences defining "Christ."

(more next post)

E.C. (concluded from previous post)

You continued:

You mean you see no development of the concept of free will in any other tradition?

Have you ever read of the entire tradition of Greek polis?

How about the thousands of potsherds from pre-Abrahamic ancient near east reflecting freely engaged commercial transactions? Was Amon-Re really a dictator? For all we know, the full pantheon of ancient near eastern gods entertained negotiations with human supplicants over territory, marriage, cattle, and slaves.

The Abrahamic covenant is hardly a model for any "concise philosophical concept" of free will. Nonsense! To the contrary, the very form of the covenant comports with a dictatorship imposed unilaterally by a Suzeriegn.

Hardly free will.

Again, assertive.

You are attributing torque-motive power to your textual interpretation. That is, you claim to read the motives of polytheists and theists alike, and then pretend you're only doing textual interpretation. Very fancy.

So what?

What's the science correlate to all this fancy hermeneutical, interpretive footwork?

Alan Cromer recently wrote that the magical thinking of ancient near eastern, and particularly Hebrew sources, amounted precisely to the sort of magically deterministic thinking that science needed to exorcize in order to advance.

Greetings all. Great discussions going on.

Byron & Cliff

Well, that translation isn't really possible. Yes, 'elohim is technically a plural, but Hebrew often uses a plural with singular meaning (e.g. damim, lit. "bloods" but used as the singular). Additionally, 'elohim is the plural of the rare singular noun 'eloah meaning god. The standard word for a god in the singular is 'el (which also happens to be the proper name of a Canaanite deity). The plural of this word is 'elim, and appears in Hebrew meaning "gods".

The reasons that 'elohim in Genesis 1 can't be translated as "the gods" are at least threefold: 1) all verbs of which 'elohim is the subject are third person masculine singular verbs, indicating that 'elohim must be taken as a singular entity, "God."; 2) it lacks the definite article, and would therefore have to be translated "gods" and not "the gods"; 3) the simple usage of Hebrew vocabulary indicates that "God" is the more probably translation--if the text read 'elim instead of 'elohim, then it would clearly mean "gods".

Another consideration is that the Genesis 1 account is the work of P, or the Priestly source, the final redactor of the pentatech (some include Joshua and say the hexateuch); ergo it dates from a time in the Israelite cult at which monotheism had become much more firmly entrenched than it was at the times the other pentateuchal sources were authored.

I believe that the people flying the UFO's have religion, just like we do. They must. Unless you believe that the oldest questions on Earth are different than those beyond the farthest orbit of everything returning, upon occasion, to the solar system. Perhaps the alien people have answered some of those ancient questions, and even have stumbled upon others of which we are yet unawares. Who really knows what alien people think, anyway?

Matt Neujhar .. Sir, I once read a delightful book by a Jewish scholar who suggested that the Christian idea of the Trinity came * originally*, from Jewish scholarlarship, but it has been lost over the centuries. He asked the question what is 1+1+1 [3], and then asked, but what is 1x1x1 [1]. He said he preferred the term triunity to trinity. He believed the Tenach revelation consistently revealed a 1x1x1 concept of monotheism rather than the present day unitarian monotheism of modern Judaism. I would appreciate your comments.

However in Science recently, a new study found errors in that mutation rate and suggested a date for mt. Eve of only 6000 years ago. - Rosemary Behan

You're surely joking. From where did pre-historic man come from? From Eve's great-great-great grandmother?

Good morning, Bernhard. I am curious as to why the scripture fails to meet your standard of scientific inquiry?

Thank you for the candor. I trust it will ultimately prove useful beyond your current level of anticipation.

My response is twofold. First, the apparent necessary incest among the first humans has several possible explanations, but in the end we can't be sure. It's possible that the sex b/t close relatives was not a problem genetically before the race fell from God's perfect will. Also, some have suggested that Adam and Eve's creation is discussed, but that does not mean God couldn't have spontaneeously created more humans.

Second, please recall from history that the lower east coast (Georgia) was set

Bernhard, cont'd

Second, please recall from history that the lower east coast (Georgia) was settled as a British penal colony. What would you expect in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War? Also, to lure settlers to New Orleans, the French brought prostitutes over from France. Finally, you should consider the impact of the plantation system and the Reconstruction Era that followed at the conclusion of the Civil War. The South, I suggest, was denied the steady growth and social maturation that moved Westward from New England as America grew.

Samuel, is there any conceivable finding that could disprove your scripture? No? Then that's why it isn't science. Every scientific claim must suggest an experiment or observation one can do or make that could disprove it. This isn't the case with the bible, which simply gets reinterpreted to accomodate new scientific knowledge.

A couple of questions, didn't adam and eve have children after they left the garden of eden, and therefor were already out of god's will? Also, doesn't the concept of original sin trace back to the fact of adam and eve's transgressions, which have been passed down to the rest of humanity through birth? If god created more humans why would they have been subject to adam and eve's mistakes, wouldn't they have been clean slates?

Secondly, Australia's origins are of an english prison colony, they don't seem to be suffering from inordinate amounts of incestuous relationships.

This does not spell the initiation of humanity, it only discusses the most recent, verifiable, common anscestor to all current humans.

Marie,
I think we should discuss "kinds" and species on the evolution board. :-) (I will see you there?)

Just a quick note on Engilsh translations of the Bible. I noticed many people referencing the King James Version and asking questions like, "Why did the KJV translate this this way," etc. It's important to keep in mind that the KJV is not the first translation of the Bible, and the KJV translators followed the conventions of earlier translations (notably the Septuagint and the Vulgate). This includes the conventions of English translators of the Bible that were earlier. These include:

John Wycliffe 1384 and 1395
William Tyndale 1530-1534
Miles Coverdale 1535
the Great Bible 1540
Thomas Matthew 1549
the Bishops' Bible 1568
the Geneva Bible 1587

The KJV wasn't until 1611.

Good Morning, all! Whew! Having found such polemicism first thing with coffee is a lot intimidating, but I absolutely refuse to lug the unabridged out just to cut off the circulation in my legs. You’re going to have to deal with whatever big (or not so big) words that come off the top of my topknot, and I guarantee nothing on the spelling angle...

Jim Rapp #142 & 143 - Of course E.C.’s observations are assertion, as are yours. How is interaction possible between opposing views unless there is some basic understanding of the understandings which shape those separate views? That’s always Step #1, from where movement becomes possible. Can you try refuting his assertions with your assertions in a less insulting way, or were you neutron-activated on your way to work this morning? I keep telling those whiz kids to turn the stupid thing off when traffic is heavy... §:o)

Matt Neujhar #144 - Hello to you, Matt! I personally thank you for your explanation of the ‘el’-’elohim’ confusion. I can tell I must haul out the texts along with the unabridged in order to clarify points with some of the more empirical minds present, but I am far too lazy this morning with only one cup of java down the hatch.

Good point on the speculation that intelligent life of all kinds can be presumed to share the same basic questions no matter where in the galaxy (or elsewhere) they may originate. I personally think that is part and parcel of the Hebraic genius in their long quest to attribute meaning to human suffering, believing above all that what was lost when meaning was hidden - guarded by cherubim, after all - is the very thing which must again be found.

I do not, however, believe it is so difficult to presume that ‘alien’ intelligence would indeed share the quest in their own fashion, or they’d have no need of science that might allow cross-cultural contact, would they? Curiosity is admirable to a certain extent, but hardly the stuff of heroic exploits. Think of it this way... to ‘Them’ WE would be the aliens, if not merely the aborigines. Depending of course upon their development of overweaning Pride that might make them wish to convert us to worshipping (on pain of immediate disintegration) their particular version of God...

The nature of Holy Writ is such that it speaks to something more than the hardware through which we experience our existence in four [large] dimensions. Thus a particular phrase or concept ["Let There Be Light"] need not itself be altered when it is scientifically discovered that the four large dimensions of time/space are indeed regulated by the absolute and relative speed of ‘Light.’ Its meaning in ‘light’ of the new revelation may well change to meet the revelation head-on, but the Truth contained in the phrase from the beginning remains the same. This is something metaphysical (in terms of symbology and psychology), not something physical.

Thus I predict that future scientific understanding of faster-than-light phenomena will again lead to reinterpretation, but the words will still remain the same. IMHO!

Rosemary,

Interesting; I have never come across anything like this. In fact, I'm not really sure what a "1x1x1 concept of monotheism" means! Do you have the reference handy? I would be very interested to read more about this. Thanks.

Joy, E.C., Rosemary

True.

Mia culpa.

E.C., welcome to the board. Honestly. I enjoyed your posts, both for content and clear style. Joy's right to call me on polemic. E.C., please forgive my unwarranted and excessively adversarial response. Please keep posting. Fire back (I enjoy an occasional retort :)). Let's enjoy, and work at it.

Rosemary, I noticed your post expressing your feelings of intimidation about posting, not because of opposition to your views, but instead because you feel others may more adequately represent them. Please don't stop posting. I sincerely enjoyed and deeply respected your thoughtful responses (in the other forum) to my pointed, tough questions. Your responses seemed right on. And, I felt moved by your genuine acknowledgment of uncertainty about how to respond to a few questions. I must say, you mentioned a few sources I've never read and now want to read, and, you aptly raised one point in particular, respecting the ontological argument, which has haunted me lifelong (more later on why). On balance, a very worthy exchange. Don't dare leave! Please keep posting.

Joy, please know that a participant from another forum wants to engage here soon on the question of moral absolutes (religiously valenced), moral relativism, and, their different consequences for issuing moral judgments on homosexuality. I have a definite sociobiological bias, judging moral senses epigenetically derived, subject to variable expression in specific moral codes across cultures (my bias). I subscribe neither to moral absolutes nor ethical relativism. I mention my bias and this upcoming topic because I'd love to know and solicit your thoughts. And, thanks again for calling me to account (mom).

I'm quite pressed for time. More later.

Cheers,

Jim

Leszek, Joy

Grrrrrr!

Leszek! Please help me before I go insane :). Leszek, you can do it! You have that natural grace and cool calm which I lack because my torque-motive responses overwhelm my cool rational capacities :). Leszek, bring on Popper, Socrates' Euthyphro, Aristotle's observation, Plato's Unmoved Mover, Darwin, Dawkins, Marvin Minsky, even Monte Python's "Life of Brian."

Phew!

Cheers and love,

Jim

("I'll be back!")

Joy: The point of contention for purposes of debate is that scientists tend to assert the theory of the week (once 'proven' to immediate satisfaction until something better comes along) as Truth Absolute for as long as it lasts, while scripture is something entirely other.

I have a few decades of experience now as a scientist, and I have worked with a lot of other scientists over that time. I have yet to meet one who treats science in this way. Your assessment of how scientists approach the truth is a popular misconception, based on the culture of pop-science.

We are well aware of the tentative nature of our work, but practicality requires working assumptions. Investigators commonly assume the validity of well supported ideas until something better (inevitably) comes along, if only to get things done in the interim.

The real difference is that science seeks to discover the truth from the bottom up, while religion seeks to postulate truth from the top down.

Jim - Thank you for the giggles! Your mind is truly a thing of wonder, just as I suspected! Yep, I sure as heck am somebody’s Mom (even grandma), but note that I never claimed my own opinions and observations weren’t just as assertive as anybody else’s. This exchange of ideas is indeed going to be fun, and I look forward to your friend’s participation. I have a few good assertions concerning the subject of human genodicta proclivitata myself, which will no doubt anger the tar out of the more Literal-Minded amonst us. Homosexuality is as natural a condition of existence as heterosexuality despite its proportional rarity, and has always been thus.

I would at the same time request a clarification from you of what it is about scripture which you feel it necessary to "scientifically falsify," along with specific examples of "falsification." In this, I think you may confuse the term "falsification" (along with its roots) with simple debunking of demonstrably erroneous "interpretation" of what is, in fact, a metaphysical/psychological construction. Other than the "Life of Brian," which is among my very favorite movies of all time, all those philosophical assertions are themselves metaphysical. Brian, on the other hand, just found himself in the wrong manger at the right time!

Return soon, oh most interesting one, and don’t forget to Look Upon the Bright Side of Life!

Your statement about bottoms-up and top-down is right on. Which is what will prove to be the melding of ideas in this forum, I hope!

I am a professional performer, and one of my characterizations (Madame Joi) is a palm reader. My mother taught me the basics on reading the map long ago, which she learned from her own grandmother, but the real talent is the psychology rather than the mapreading. Nothing awfully metaphysical in that, of course, unless one cares to debate the relative accuracy of that map.

hi all.

ARGH!!!!! Hopefully this newly installed OS will actually allow me to post this time without starting all over again from scratch!

Hello, Steve Hamilton! What's on your mind this afternoon (EST)?

Well.... Allow me to lower the collective brows (semanticaly, at least!) with some more observations from the peanut gallery.

The arguments between science and religion are confounded primarily by the insistance of each proponent that the tests and structure of their position be applied to the other. Thus:

• The literalist insists that religion conform to emperical reason, something it is neither intended nor constructed to do.
• The thiest insists that science be inerrant in its supisition of "truth," something science intentionaly forbids.

The creationist will often cry, "It's only a theory(speaking of evolution, of course,) declaring that anything that is not granted absolute confidance is not to be considered valid. The aethiest will then declare, "There is no rational reason to believe in God," therein overlooking the very essence of faith.

Somedays it really is like a German and a Spaniard arguing French semantics in Russian.

Well, now that I have plugged this board over at the New York Times forums I suppose I should actually post something here...

I think I'll address a comment on the NYT forum about scientists who are religious as well.

Some saw no problem with that and generally speaking I don't either however in some circumstances I would question it.

In a scenario wherein a scientist is working on something with a possible outcome contrary to his/her religious teachings I question if the scientist in question would be objective.

Keith - "Somedays it really is like a German and a Spaniard arguing French semantics in Russian." LOL! Yep, that pretty much pegs it, doesn't it?

Not sure I grasp your meaning in saying that a scientist's work might conflict with his/her religious teachings, though. This might be true if a scientist exploring the not-time bias of subatomic existence believed with all his heart and mind that what Preacher X said about time in a religious context were Absolute Truth, but I've never encountered that wall.

Probably because I've found that scientists who maintain a personal faith in God generally do not buy into the catechisms designed by politicians posing as holy men. We choose our particular denominational allegiences based upon the alignment of denominational interpretations to the interpretations our own faith comes up with for our own way of seeing things. In that, I believe faith is so highly personal it can be nothing but polluted by rigid adherence to politics.

So some drastic errors of interpretation can be reasonably overlooked by the faithful while faith remains intact. I once laughed at our minister who told me my babies would go to hell if he didn't sprinkle them with water. He was highly distressed that I thought this so silly, but in fact I did not see his particular degree in theology as all that much more 'holy' than my degree in physics. I still call myself a Christian, though.

Yo, Steve! Where'd you go?

Joy,

I strolled off for a minute. But now I am back. I first came to these boards months before I went and visited the NYTimes forums. Back on my first visit, this place was dead. I think Jim has done us all a great service in requesting this forum.

psi-dagger-psi.

I've been offering CNN as an alternative to the NYT forums on the "Religion and Politics" board for some time now.

When they disconinued the "Science and Religion" forum, I mentiond that CNN had a "Science and Nature" section as the "elves" tend to be receptive to constructive ideas for new boards.

Now the rest...

I was thinking specifically of "Creationist" scientists and a few Fundamentalist Christian researchers I know of who work hard to try to prove homosexuality is some kind of choice or disease.

Joking, of course, since I'm no doubt about to make some of those fundamentalists extremely upset. What I get for thinking for myself, no doubt.

"Creationist Scientists?" Isn't this an oxymoron? I mean this most sincerely, as what we have here is a contradiction in terms. A "Creationist Scholar" would be eminently acceptable, but a "Fundamentalist Researcher" must also be a scholar to be legitimate I would think. If one begins with a prior certainty rather than a prior theory, one is merely proving a point. Scientific research must (one would hope) be more objective than that.

BTW, if homosexuality is a choice or a disease, how might such a 'researcher' explain homosexual cats, dogs, or goats? There are no doubt other species-specific examples, but cats, dogs and goats are within my own experience.

Aside from being interesting in personality and non-reproduceable by nature, these critters were great at being the critters they were. Fundamentalists tend also to believe 'lesser' species have no self-awareness, thus choice cannot be an option here. They lived regular lifespans, so it wasn't disease either.

And <sigh> I have engaged this debate within my own family before. My husband and I have been known to function in scientific environs, though at this point in time we're child advocates, performers and fundraisers for non-secular charities (Presbyterian, to be exact). My mother-in-law is a deacon in the Presbytery.

My husband's brother, on the other hand, is an ordained Baptist minister. Talk about fireworks! He does not, however, make any pretentions to scientific objectivity, and merely claims divine intervention. Because he's so genuinely loveable, funny and shiningly inspired, we take it as a weakness for denominational politics rather than an innate flaw in his genetics. Underneath it all, he's really not a bad guy at all.

Hi, Joy. I don't know if you remember me from the early days of the HNC. (Had to drop off because the volume was too much to keep up with.)

Anyway, I'm the one Jim warned you about re: moral absolutism and relativism, particularly in regards to homosexuality, and the dichotomy of the views of science (natural/normal) vs. religion (choice/sin).

To get some basic info (and possible misconceptions) out of the way, I describe myself as a Taoist, though that is an incomplete description of my own personal belief system. I was raised Mormon (a branch of Christianity), but found Christianity severely lacking for true growth. And, YES, I am gay.

Comments, anyone?

Talking of "creation science", I have to warn all within earshot that it is the one area in which I have very strong (negative) opinions. Let's just not go there...for the love of....

joy or madame joi,
Which new OS are you using? Just wondering.

Perhaps, in the larger view of things, I am a deviate far more than any homosexual could be. I've always seen life as an adventure to be lived completely and enjoyed thoroughly (despite ugliness), and I never doubted for a moment that God loved me just as I am. I BELIEVE there is More going on that anybody's yet explained rationally to me, which I find very stimulating and exciting, and have seen with my own eyes more than once.

Growth is all in how we care to grow. I try hard to avoid pits where growth is stifled by absolutes other than the one I personally subscribe to: Love. There is room in Love for everyone, I hope.

I agree with you. The problem I see is that while I know this and you know this many people do not understand it.

All they see is people that look the part of the "scientist" with all the impressive letters after their name and so take their "findings" as they would the finding of a legitimately objective scientist.

I don't know...I keep asking them the same thing. Don't forget Bonobos monkeys and the Dept. of Agriculture's gay rams!

Please tell me you look like Roselyn Russell. "Auntie Mame" is one of my all-time favorite movies. <g>

I agree completely, but you shouldn't overlook the power play going on, or the monetary aspect. Pat Robertson pulls in over $20 million TAX FREE every year.

Very similar to my beliefs.

Am I hogging, or just the only one here? Before I go off to do the dishes, take the trash out and cook dinner, one more thought...

Michael said, "I think the security of labeling everything in the universe black or white in moral absolutism is not only fallacious, but dangerous. The universe has no absolutes and is possessed of such diversity that we mere mortals will never comprehend. We humans have this annoying tendency to try and destroy diversity in favor of homogeneity, which when you really look at things, is truly unnatural."

The natural universe, scientifically speaking, is predicated upon pillars entirely relative to the speed of light. In this relativity-based universe, humans are prone by psychological imperitive (most of us, anyway) to seek that which is absolute. I suspect this amounts to the "image of God" discussed previously. That absolute, however, is not accessible here, since the god of relativity (by whatever name) rules this level. We seek quite another entity. The surety that He/She/It exists is telling, I think.

Conundrum: what then may be considered absolute in a relative universe? My own personal answer to Job: Love. Incompletely understood, heartbreaking in its foolishness, tragic in its loss.

Still, a worthy goal. When those Cherubim ask me the question designed to test my readiness to pass the event horizon, I do know the Answer. Oops... wrong planet. They won't catch me coming back here again!

Well, you know Joy, I doubt that the aliens, who are flying in the UFOs, have come all the way from near elsewhere to demand subscription to their universe view. Motivation for their investigation of the Earth might be a distinct enterprise from spreading the word, as they see it. Simply put, they could be curious and, since they are flying around in UFOs, technologically advanced. But their need for scientific understanding of things alien to them may have nothing to do with a religion based upon a singular divine being.

That doesn't prevent them from entertaining things divine. They might view it that way. Neither are they prevented from subscribing to a "religion" based soley upon investigation via scientific method, devoid of anything divine. In that case, perhaps they are headed for hell when they die, if, indeed, they ever do. Then again, maybe not.

Apres-Dishes - Thank you, Michael and Eric for being here with me today. You have much to offer this forum, I think, and hope to see you soon! I will have my husband, clown-name of Fredzo, try to fix my conflict this evening so I may post more freely between other business.

Please, neither of you forget what an Angel once told me when my only son bled to death in my arms (Truth I kid you not, though this is not the forum for that story)... God Loves All His Volunteers.

As Absolute as it gets around here, and something we'd all do well to keep in mind. Bye!

Bernhard Schopper - #179 :

One could even say that the beginings of religion came about by simple fear. Man knew of the dangers of the dark, when they were not masters of their domain. The dark held death as any member of the tribe who dared venture out of their encampment at night soon learned. At night, man was the prey! So they worshipped those creatures of the night and made them gods so that they would have a little thread of hope that they would not be killed if they were to worship them. But they also worshipped cattle gods to bring prosperity for their herds and wind gods and fire gods and of course wine gods.

Going back even further in time, one could even envision the awe and respect of the man who could go into the blackness of the back of the cave and return alive. 'A special person he must be! Let us give offerings of our choicest meats and freshest roots that he thus will provide us with guidence and protection!' Soon however this sly fellow saw other opportunities. 'God has also told me to tell you to give me your prettiest virgins and he will provide you with great harvests.' To which a someone asked the question, 'Which god told you this?' and the reply from the priest was, 'Who dares to question the will of god? Kill the heathen so that I might be rid of him! Now, any more questions?'

Picard: "Commander, have you been able to determine the cause of the warp breach?"

LaForge: "No, sir. Everything was normal, and then, suddenly, it's like the laws of physics went right out the window."

Q: "And why shouldn't they? They're so inconvenient." --"True Q", Stardate 46192.3

I tend to think that love and other emotional states may be entirely human constructs. I don't know if there was love at one Planck time following the creation of the Cosmos since their were no people or other possible lifeforms for that matter to experience this emotion. If by definition a constant is a quantity that does not change with time or space then how can love be considered as such if it requires a human being to experience it? If God is the source of love then how can it be measured in a rather violent universe? Colliding galaxies and X-ray bursters capable of frying nearby planetary systems is not my idea of love.

Priestly perks drive the bureacracy to some extent, no doubt. How could that kind of motivation for survivial be any different than similar power plays in other institutions?

Just for laughs:

I got into an argument with my father in law who happens to be an evangelist. He steadfastly stood by the 6,000 year age of the universe as demonstrated in the Bible. I mentioned the fossil record and he said that these fossils were just rocks and that you cannot obtain any information one way or another from them. I then mentioned radiocarbon dating and he told me that he doesn't believe in it and that good Christians should not be unequally yoked ie. date other nonchristians. I must have laughed for a half hour straight.

Nick Warr - #151 :

Very good point! The bible says that adam was created from the dust of the earth, but that eve was created from the rib of adam. If so, then wouldn't they both have the same DNA? That in itself would tend to invalidate any mitochondrial DNA search results! <[:`) (tongue in cheek)

If god had "spontaneously created more humans", out of dust or even thin air, to breed with the sons of adam and eve and with themselves, then their DNA would, being wholly new to the human lifeline, would also be in the mitochondrial forefront as 'EVE'! Since they came not from either adam or eve, they themselves were also the first mothers, as their DNA would have been passed down through the lifeline instead of just eves'.

MrSmith, that also brings up the interesting question, that if THEY were made from any of adams or eves body parts , then why weren't the sons also made this way? Or was god just hedging all bets with a scenerio of, "Better not leave any sign of other humans or they'll start asking questions! We can't have that!"

OK! I was being facetious there! Evolution has not been proven , that is true! But as a theory of what most probably has been, it goes a very long way toward explaining who we were! But until someone actually finds the remains of that one single animal, assuming that it was layed to rest in such a manner as to become preserved in some manner, that became man, then it will remain a theory for man to answer.

While waiting to be punished for my sins in the dentist's waiting room this afternoon, I read an interesting piece in this month's Discover magazine about the formation of the Black Sea. Scientists have been analysing core samples from the sea bed, and have come to the conclusion from the nature of the sediments and the animal remains found that about 7-8,000 years ago, the Black Sea was only 2/3 as large and was fresh/brackish water. With the melting of the ice, however, the level of the Mediterranean rose until it eventually breached what is now the the Bosphorus and poured salt water into the Black Sea. Apparently, it would have taken about two years to completely fill it.

It doesn't take much to come to the conclusion that perhaps this event (or one like it) is the one spoken of in the bible... it would have been cataclysmic for people living there, and the story might well have been passed on in biblical legend.

"If by definition a constant is a quantity that does not change with time or space then how can love be considered as such if it requires a human being to experience it? If God is the source of love then how can it be measured in a rather violent universe? Colliding galaxies and X-ray bursters capable of frying nearby planetary systems is not my idea of love."

Was it not Job who asked the Q (Question) in the first place? If it requires a human being, we might well ask God when we see Him/Her/It why so. Yet you may be guilty of misattributing the warp breach via reliance on merely 4 obvious dimensions and not considering the "insignificant" ones...

Time is as relative as space, my friend. Perhaps God knew whereof He spoke. I do not consider Evil to be something particularly non-violent, as I've seen too much of it. Humans, it would seem, are at least as violent as Creation, measured against their own insignificant timeline.

P.S. Just previous to +1 Planck Time, there was Perfect Symmetry. The Singularity at the Beginning of Time...

I certainly agree with this. Which graduate school did you attend?

Leszek,

Yes, I read about the formation of the Black Sea in Discover (and the NY Times) about a year ago, I think. The volume of water rushing in daily was apparently so great that geologists speculate that the mere sound of the rushing water would have been audible up to 100 miles away. Plus the time frame is right for an event to be preserved in the folk traditions of the earliest civilizations.

A knee jerk response to that, Joy, is "prove it." A reasoned response to that is E.C.'s... "I certainly agree with that."

Perhaps a quantum fluctation, from out of the zero mean sea of possibilities, acting in, or near, a random, spatio-temporal instability... but that would be putting the cart before the horse? Even then, how could there be perfect symmetry at such an event? Before there, there was nowhere for there to be? Before there, was there X and P... anywhere? Hence God, I suppose...

§:o)

There is no way of proving anything at these short time scales and tropical conditions (~1e40 K)

We can only look at clues in nature. The cosmic background radiation is nearly isotropic. Only at the scales of galaxy clusters and smaller aggregates of baryonic matter is the symmetry broken.

If you are speaking of creation myths, I don't think they really agree in detail. I'm told that many creation myths include a flood story, but you know, just about all ancient civilizations were built near water... rivers, lakes or the sea. Floods would have been a common feature of their history, as they are a common feature today. It really would be a stretch to extrapolate and assume that they are all referring to a single event. Had they all independently referred to "Noah and the Ark", I'd consider that significant and something that required an explanation, but actual descriptions of flood events are so broad and generic they could apply to just about any old flood.

Like the "predictions" of Nostradamus, the fortunes in Chinese fortune cookies, and the wisdom of the horoscope, if you make your story or description vague enough, it can be stretched to cover a large number of contingencies, and so proclaimed "Prophetic!" However, I remain far from impressed :)

Hence the caveat of the universe... God.

Yep, too hot to get a grip on?

Anyway, viewing the seat of it all as a quantum fluctuation, has conceptual problems. First, and foremost, is a point of origin. Why there? Moreover, it also comes to mind that only one there was there everywhere. There, then, was everywhere. Only one (t,x,y,z)... (0,0,0,0)?

Now about this business of the Antediluvian Flood of the old Testament. A creation scientist who happened to be a strong proponent of the literal interpretation of the Bible got his hands on a general circulation model (he had some training in meteorology) and increased the water vapor content in the model atmosphere by several fold in order to allow sufficient moisture in the lower troposphere for nearly constant convection along the tropics and midlatitudes. Unfortunately, the model reacted as it would with such an increase in greenhouse gases (yes H2O vapor is an extremely efficient greenhouse gas) and the result was a runaway transitive climactic response. In the end,the model Earth looked more like Venus with extreme surface temperatures than the Earth we know today.

First, and foremost, is a point of origin. Why there? Moreover, it also comes to mind that only one there was there everywhere. There, then, was everywhere. Only one (t,x,y,z)... (0,0,0,0)?

Defining a point in space where the universe was created is sort of meaningless since there is no pre-existing space upon which to define the nascent universes position.

les, many early civilizations may have, indeed, thrived in what are now the littoral realms of the Earth. Short-term, violent floods could have occurred on a regular basis, as the ice sheets began to melt. Evidence for catastrophic flooding exists in many localities, now dry.

With regard to mythical Atlantis, it may not have been just one place on Earth. Rather, it may have been spread throughout those regions now inundated. If human beings lived there for thousands of years prior to ice-out, a ten year period of forced evacuation could also seem like a sudden change, a catastrophe.

That is an area of research that is fascinating. Off the shore of Japan, nearly intact stone structures were recently found. They are as ornate, I understand, and as sophisitcated architecturally as anything found in the Andes or in Egypt. I don't recall their age, however.

Well, the thing you have to remember about biblical literalists is that in their view, god can and does suspend the laws of physics whenever it suits him. Or her. Which is why creationists talk of "special creation", which is in their view a time and process when the laws presently governing the universe did not hold sway.

Scientists, of course, have to assume that the laws they presently see have governed the universe for all time and always will (let's ignore the problem of the initial singularity for the present as a problem not yet resolved :). Otherwise, if god breaks his laws on a whim, scientific predictability would be impossible... science would be impossible. Since science IS possible, the simplest assumption is that the laws we know of do not change over time and space, or that god does not see fit to change them over time and space.

Which argues for a creator who is substantially detached from her creation... once she set it in motion, she left it to unfold according to the laws she put in place. Alternatively, we can suppose god doesn't exist and we are just a quantum fluctuation. One way or another, I suspect religion and worship are largely a sham.

Darn! There goes my nephew's science fair project. :-)

Matt Neujhar. I've scrabbled through boxes to find this Matt, and I'm not sure it was worth it. I'm delighted to re-read it, but it is old. The copy I have which is falling to bits, is entitled, "Out of the Clouds," by Zevi Ben Avraham and is registered at the GPO Melbourne for transmission by post as a book [Copyright pending] That is all it says, no date, no nothing. Here's a bit more .. He talked about Jewish trinitarianism dying reluctantly. On Jeremiah 23:5-7 the Talmud says, 'Three there are who are called by Shem ha Meforash .. the Tetragammaton.' He has a long discussion about the difference between the Hebrew word for unite and for singularity. He talks about the different forms between nouns and adjectives of these words. That's when he got into the thing that stayed in my mind. 1+1+1 =3 saying .. "Although the three are added together they are not a unity .. they are three. That shows their singlarity both as units and in their relationship one to the other. However 1x1x1 = 1, in this case the three 1's, although clearly displaying that they are units, equally clearly display unity. I think the Tenach use of [I'm using my old Weingreen here because it's the Hebrew in the book] Dalet,Yod,Het,Yod is related to the 1+1+1 singularity trend. Whereas the Tenach use of Dalet,Het,Alep is related to the 1x1x1 unity trend although it is also used as a singularity. Some applications of Dalet,Het,Alep in its unity form are Bereshit 1:5. So evening and morning associated together make day. Not 1+1 = 2, but 1x1 = 1. Or chapter 2:24 Or again the use of the word in chapter 41 [Pharoah's dream] Here Pharoahs two separate and distinct dreams expressed in two separate terms are nevertheless declared to be Dalet,Het,Alep. With equal accuracy Joseph could have declared .. Hear O Pharoah, [the]dream, our dreams, [the] dream is One. He goes on to discuss the Shema.

ec, that's the big broken symmetry of it all:

.............BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I fully agree with your points. Science is possible only because there is an underlying order to the universe. However science would not exist in a static universe as well for obvious reasons. It is only where order is coupled with some randomness (chaos) that events take on a deterministic character allowing for prediction and analysis.

All kidding aside, I am not too harsh on religion and worship since I do believe that it serves a function in many people's lives.

Wow, y'all. I believe this is the best stuff I've ever seen on the CNN Boards! What a Wonderment!

A waterborne event? Why not similar but local waterborne events? It's an assumption to say that just because several stories refer to a flood that they must all be referring to the same flood. Such a flood would have left a geological footprint visible over the entire planet. Such a footprint doesn't exist, as far as anyone knows, and heaven knows, the geologists have been remarkably busy in the last 200 years.

This is the problem with trying to treat religious scripture as factual or scientific text... when you hold it up to scientific scrutiny, it always fails, thus calling the spiritual value of the document into question, which is unfair. Biblical literalists are setting themselves up for a major fall. The amazing thing is, they don't need to do this... they could try interpreting Biblical stories in the context of the scientific knowledge of the days when the bible was written. But no, it has to be the literal truth. Too bad, they lose all credibility that way when the world is found to be different from biblical expectations.

Ah, Leszak! What, do you suppose apart from some politician's definition, constitutes "worship?" Could it not be something more useful than beating one's head against the sand 3 times a day, or wailing at some wall, or paying more than God-Honest Dues to the guy who says he can heal you if you pay him enough?

There I agree with you... anything that can bring at least a semblance of order into chaos is better than nothing. And at least religion grants a purpose to the universe which science (at least at present) cannot, and feeling that there is a puropse to all this is comforting, and I'm not one to deny the value of comfort.

But comforting things and true things don't need to be the same. Perhaps most of us *need* religion, and perhaps we evolved with an instinct for it, that some of us don't need. I do think that religion has a practical purpose, it's just that I, personally, have no use for it :)

E.C. - That Archangel's a place, not an entity.

Not unless the universe is closed and cyclic. In that case

symmetry preserved in "time".

I think that "worship" can be very useful in someone's life, if it gives them a purpose that they would otherwise lack, and if they need such a purpose. I don't oppose religion, though I don't espouse it, it has its place. I just object when religionists attempt to explain the world without paying attention to science. They can try to address issues of "why", but the "how" is in the scientific realm.

Dave On:

You said "It is fine to read "science" into the bible. That's not to say that there isn't science in there - it's also fair to say there is a lot of myth and made up stuff too. Don't fall into the trap of reading modern observation into documents where it does not apply.

Yes, we can say that "Let there be light", is the Big Bang [not that we can say 100% that the BB occured ;-) ] - however, in Genesis the lights in the sky came after the land - we know with a high degree of certainty this is not the case. Land animals in the wrong evolutionary placing etc etc... It was a good guess, but, I fear nothing more than that.

The point I hoped to get across (and I have written a book about it ... which details the entire retranslation of Gen 1&2, in/with the perspective and scholarship of a fairly competent scientist ... it's soon to be on the market, ie a week or so), is that an accurate and precise reading of the original Hebrew scriptures reveals a very exact and correct outline of the origins of earth and life. The "errors" we assume are in the 1600 KJV translating (really never corrected since). For example, The "Big Bang" is not explicitly stated in Genesis, (but one can make a good case that it is referenced elsewhere in the Bible) and I would never try to equate the "let there be light" verse with it. That verse may, however be referring to the natural processes that either cleared earth's atmosphere, or the debris in space that would shadow and diffuse light enough to prevent sufficient light falling on the planet surface (which is the narrative perspective of that verse, and which is different from the perspective of Gen 1:1). And the placement of process/event in Gen 1:14 is actually rather "reasonable", even to an atheistic scientist, if the entire account is read and comprehended as origin

Dave On, continued (and concluded)

as originally written. Also, for that matter, "land animals" are actually correctly placed, and accounted for, as well. As are the various "levels" of life (in the very broadscale brush of a mere 30 verses) in both plant and animal kingdoms (and insects, and dinosaurs, which are two noticeable types of life most readers think are totally missing from the Genesis account).

I rejoin, to you, that there is indeed quite a bit of "science" in there, including some very strong statements about principles of genetics and species and even - and this is something I never expected - "evolution" at the lower [insect, bacteria, simple plants, etc] levels]! And if all this is just a (lucky)"good guess", or series of the same, it ought to catch our attention, and provoke a bit more concern and respect. Certainly more than I ever accorded it in my 30 years of being an atheistic scientist, and than you probably have yet given it. The trap to avoid, I think, is to not at least give serious enough heed to a book that professes to tell us the story from at least 3500 years ago, and appears to really do that, because we (science-believers) have (conveniently?) been relying on the word(s) and understandings of some English scholars in 1600.

Russell H

Gauss' measure...Yep.

Crunch...Bang...Crunch...Bang...IBID

les, if civilization was largely confined to what are now littoral regions, it would be difficult to collect evidence for catastrophic floods influencing daily life... way back when...

However, the channeled scab lands of the Northwest, are very well documented, I think, and attributed to a sudden break in the ice dam, sending torrents of water over the Earth in that locale. A geologist could give a better accounting of it than can I. But, similar things occurred at Gibralter, I've been told, but have not checked its veracity.

Amen, my friend. This is the point of the point, is it not?

Oh, but I do, I do!

Maybe you can help me with a question. In Genesis 1:16-18, God created the Sun and the Moon on the third day. If you take the literal interpretation of this, how can God create these bodies on the third day if the length of sidereal day is measured by the rising and setting of the Sun. Its like keeping time without a clock isn't it?

Yes, there's plenty of evidence for large-scale catastrophic floods... none for an epic single world-wide one. Let alone the vexed question of where all that water came from :) I recall hearing of similar ideas for the formation of the Mediterranean, but haven't been able to find the reference.

It does rather seem that whenever religion has challenged science on scientific turf (Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin) it has lost. However, that irritates me somewhat because I think that religion can encapsulate useful rules according to which we can live our lives, whereas science cannot. Everytime religion picks a fight with science and loses, its ability to guide us in how we should live our lives is tarnished. That's the problem as I see it with the literal biblical fundamentalists... by attempting to assert the scientifically impossible, they help destroy the value that religion actually has.

I want to know is, how it was that god created light before he created the stars that make it... this is an example of how biblical literalism clashes with science.

Leszak and E.C. - Are you taking things more literally than I am? Thought I already made that point... it's metaphysics, not physics.

Metaphysics isn't a science... but physics is. I don't take the bible literally, but many do, and that's the problem. They're wrong.

Another issue that gets to me is the business concerning the second coming/rapture. It never fails that someone makes a prediction for this event on a specific date. one of the most notorious of these predictions occurred in 1994 given by radio minister Harold Camping. The date came and went and Mr. Camping changed his story and said that we are officially living in God's grace period. The scriptures say that no man shall know the hour of God's arrival...he will arrive like a thief in the night. So how do so many Christian's fall for this nonsense if the Bible tells them otherwise? Mr Camping did sell a lot of books but what really gets to me is that his listening audience increased after he made this prediction which failed to happen. Expect more of the same in the coming two years by other "false" prophets.

Oooh, but that BANG was darned BIG, Leszek! Go back to Go, Do Not Collect $200...

I want to buy Park Place.

Your point is???? <g>

I hope that I didn't offend anyone. I'll settle with a get out of jail free card.

<sigh> Leszek, I know whereof you speak on literalism, though surely you can see how this can be the Prime Paradox. There is ever the desire to make the metaphysical into the physical, suspension of disbelief to make Magic real. My family trades in this commodity as the Rom did/do. When one knows where the magician hides the doves, the effect is lost...

EMP

les, if a large portion of civilization was living in what is now submerged coastal waters, and a sudden warm spell of significant duration could have led to a geologically sudden flooding of those regions. Think of what the global warming people warn of now, with the water levels rising. I am not offering this as proof, by the way, but merely food for thought.

The difference with magic and miracles is that physical laws are pretty much left alone in the former and discarded to varying degrees in the latter. Mass/energy conservation is not violated by stuffing a dove up you sleeve (not that magicians actually do this) and make it appear to vanish. Events like the parting of the Red Sea, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead are much harder to explain in terms of known physical laws. Therein lies the distinction.

Hydrologic cycle is probably a better term to describe the varying moisture fluxes between land surfaces, vegetation, oceans, and sea ice into the atmosphere and back again.

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea necabit!

O Lord! Look at the time! My wife will kill me!

Until tomorrow

However, that irritates me somewhat because I think that religion can encapsulate useful rules according to which we can live our lives, whereas science cannot. - Leszek Rzepecki

First, let me comment on this ugly, sans serif type face "arial, helvetica" that is being used here. Allow me to switch to Times New Roman (I hope the switch works.)

Those "useful rules", or perhaps more appropriately, a moral sense, by which we distinguish between right or wrong is not necessarily governed by religion. Science has confirmed that our observation of virtuous action is the occasion for a feeling of pleasure and satisfaction, which enables us to distinguish that action as being virtuous. Similarly, science has confirmed that our observation of an instance of vicious action is the occasion for a feeling of pain, which enables us to distingish that action as being vicious.

P.S. Rain - #201 :

Check out

http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/japan/japan.html for more info about the japanese underwater ruins. Pay particular attention to the 4th picture down on the left side. Definitly not a natural formation!

Russell,

Very cool! Could we have the title & publisher? Eagerly awaiting....

I'm a little confused. The KJV ain't my favorite translation, but I've read the Hebrew, and it's not that different--and it certainly does not "reveal a very exact and correct outline of the origins of earth and life." Unless, of course, when you emphasized original you were implying that the masoretic text somehow is not the best candidate for an "orginal" Hebrew text. If this is indeed what you are suggesting, what is the "orginal Hebrew scriptures" to which you refer? As far as I am aware, no such critter exists.

But I have seen Miracles, E.C. (goodnight and God Bless!). I have seen stones hover weightless above freshly plowed fields - not readily explainable, but not miracles - and I've seen so much More, on levels you would understand if I were allowed to tell. I am not, so I bid you pleasant dreams, and hope to see you here again tomorrow!

BTW - I know where the doves are hidden, and I still believe in Magic...

"Events like the parting of the Red Sea, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead are much harder to explain in terms of known physical laws."

The operative word here is "known," my friend. I have already mentioned seas, but will whisper a secret in terms of Lazarus...

In a relativity universe, governed by relative 'law,' it's all relative to the function of consciousness. Waves, not particles. Time is an illusion.

Joy, in four dimensional geometry, time is a dimension. Time is not an illusion.

I understand that Einstein believed that the passage of time is an illusion, however.

Russell, I guess you must have missed my questions which I am sure you would have wanted to answer had you seen them. So here they are again:

Do you agree with me that Genesis 2:19 indicates specifically that after God created a man, all the other animals, male and female, were created, and brought to the man to be named, and then finally, according to Genesis 2:22, God made a woman as his final act of creation?

How does that correspond with the fossil record and "the picture that "science" is drafting today"?

Matt, I do not think you are confused in the least. I think you know what you are talking about.

BTW, it is very nice to have someone like you around, who is particularly knowledgeable about these areas of interest. And I would certainly like to express my appreciation for your explanations and corrections with respect to my prior posts. I appreciate reliable information and I have enjoyed your posts very much.

As long as you keep posting, I shall keep reading. Thank you.

Joy, one last thing. You know that time slows down at speeds near the speed of light. Well, in addition to that, distance is shortened. Actually, at the speed of light, time stops and distance disappears. That means that all the photons in the universe actually touch each other, since all photons travel at the speed of light. Interesting huh?

Matt Neujhar .. did you catch my post 204 .. is it a load of nonsense?

Russel, qctuqlly no, I still disqgree - Cliff's point also stands in the contradiction between Gensis 1 and 2.

Sea Mammals, for example, came after land mamals etc...

I have no problem with science being in the bible - ancient people were more primative, they were not, I say again, stupid. People have been making obervations a long long time - Stonehenge predates the bible and is still a remarkably accurate astronomical clock. However, it is very easy with hindsight to read messages into a text which the author did not intend. For example, I write fiction - people read my stories and will ask quite complex questions about the characters and their motivations congratulating me on the way I included something. More often than not it's news to me.

It's true there isn't much evidence for a world wide flood, but then again, there isn't much evidence the creators/authors of the bible knew of the existence of much besides their small section of the world. I personally haven't heard any tales of a jewish magellan, or anyone else with a yen or proclivity to find new lands. Besides the sheer logistics of planning ocean crossing ventures,(food, fresh water, men who want to leave for years at a time) it is doubtful any of the sea-going craft in those times would have been adequate for the task.So I suppose it is possible that when the speak of a world wide flood, they speak of a flood big enough to cover the world as they know it.Of course, this is just my theory.

Rosemary,

I was confused for a second when I saw "dalet- het- aleph" then I figured out it's right to left. Yes, many commentators (including Origen, I believe) have made note of the fact that Genesis 1:5 technically says "one day" and not "first day"--that is, it uses a cardinal whereas the rest of the text uses ordinals. And, there obviously is a semantic difference. I'm not quite sure why the cardinal number was used; I know it has been the subject of much Christian interpretation as well as some Jewish midrash (which is how I would categorize the information you quoted me), but I've also had teachers who have brushed it off and not seen any importance in it, nor in my question about it ;). Myself, I don't think there is any real hard philological case to support it, nor historical backing. But it does make for nice midrash. It reminds me of the medieval Jewish mystical schools who, in staunch opposition to the philosophy of Maimonides, insisted that God indeed is comprised of many distinguishable parts, or emenations.

Leszek, thanks for the link here, I've definitely enjoyed reading all the posts, because unlike other boards I frequent on this site, the levels of dogma and (for lack of a better word,coffee still hasn't kicked in) pigheadedness are almost nonexistent. It's refreshing to see which ever side people take on this board, they don't start with the attitude that everything they are posting is an absolute.

Hit and run for now, Cliff, will be back later...

Sure, that's the limitation of our existence in 4 dimensions, yet on the lesser dimensions (not hardwired to perceptability) it does not function that way at all.

BTW - at the speed of light (absolute), where all photons are in contact with one another, theoretical physicists may well find the event horizon of that First and Last Great Singularity (Alpha and Omega). If I get back later today, let's speculate a little bit about what's on the other side of that, okay?

Oh, yeah - before I go I'll toss another bone for later on. Check up on some of the discoveries since 1977 related to negative entropy (thermodynamic violations) and anti-gravity. Bye!

Back again during my cruise, with yet another note for research purposes -

In conjunction with 2nd Law Violations (entropy), check Stephen Hawking's little "abomination," the naked singularity. This monstrosity (in his view) would make time a very unpredictable thing, as the darned thing's got NO event horizon! Then if you can, do the math on exactly how small such an abomination could be, thus exactly how likely we humans might be to actually encounter such a thing...

I think that these arguments are right on the edge of what we know, or think we know. The theories of Hawkins and others are hardly scientific dogma, they are speculations at present, and not even Hawkins would claim them as gospel.

Of course, that doesn't make them unscientific, but let's not get carried away. Here, we're at the cutting edge of science, and it won't be at all surprising if most of those ideas get swept away in time.

Joy
Negative entropy and second law violations? Pray go on. This sounds very muddled to me.

Why not state-events? If all points in space-time map to the monoblock or at least a patch of primordial space-time; There may not be any "bang" or "crunch" so much as there is infomation desemination. We tend to view expansion as topological when it is equaly valid to view expansion as probabilistic.

Hawking demonstrated that such things are not prohibited by the math. He did not show any reason to actually assume that such a configuration of time were actually possible... besides... a naked singularity does not actually lack an event horizon, it simply has one that is difuse and non-linear.

Bernhard (Schopper #97):

I'm glad to see you got yourself a Bible. Shows you are a bit more honest and open minded than many atheists (myself included for about 30 years). Not only that, you read some of it! But...you've now gone on to show the wisdom of the old saw, "A little wisdom is a dangeous thing".

Don't assume reading some Bible makes you fully qualified to judge it, or debate it, or condemn it with authority. No more than a layman reading a popularized book about modern physics is qualified to take on Hawking. But it does place in your hands a chance to start asking better questions, and the data to start checking out some answers. But, as we'd never let a freshman commandeer a dinosaur dig, we shouldn't let you commandeer the theology and doctrine in Christianity. Or announce the conclusions of your digging to the world as fact. You've got a lot of study, and a lot to learn if you are earnest. Let me offer a few suggestions, facts and hypotheses, to investigate and ponder.

1) Genealogies in ancient Hebrew culture were not complete, father-son-grandson-etc. They were highlights of notables. Many generations might be concealed between each name, much as we tend to tell our own to someone - we remember George Washington, but not the farmhands and convicts in our ancestry. So your verse is not telling us Cain had to choose from a couple of sisters for a wife. Coulda been distant cousins, or....

2) Scripture is not clear (tho most Christians, admittedly, think it is) about Adam. The original Hebrew would even allow (theoretically), even hints, there were many populations of hominids extant in that time, and that Adam was rather like an earlier Abram, chosen (from an H. sapiens tribe) to be God's first "Man". So too with Eve. Several words relied upon for the King James' "Eve from Adam's rib" account are uniquely (only time ever) translated; fetching her from a tribe and similarly sanctifying her and "betrothing" her is a much less

to Bernhard cont, finished:

sanctifying her and "betrothing" her is a much less stretched translation!

Cain, if 1 & 2 were true, might actually have chosen a wife from thousands of "sisters" (and "cousins", as well as thousands of non-sanctified, non-chosen "other H. sapiens". This hypothesis could answer why Cain was afraid he would be murdered after his banishment, and explain the efficacy of God's recognizable and respected "mark" of protection. And whence came the populations for the city Cain founded. Other Scriptures that say God was grieved by some sort of "out-marrying", and a consequent troublesome hybrid population, and this hypothesis could account for them as well.

3) Also, the Bible attributes very long (1000 year) life spans, at the beginning. That, if true, could create large populations of "men" quickly. Could it be that a purer, or purified genome and environment could have allowed this to be true, and that a consequence of the "Fall" was a loss of such genetic purity, and the safer pristine environment deteriorated, and both deteriorated the life spans? Essentially, that is what the Bible says!

4) Incest is a value laden term, to us. It was common, even mandated in many early cultures. The value-loads tripped up many anthropologists in their earlier reports on many cultures, and contributed to some erroneous scientific paradigms about the dangers of inbreeding. And in times of purer, healthier genomes, that error would be even more extreme.

Let these points stand as testable, or at least ponderable, hypotheses a while and see if you can't ask better questions, or make better criticisms of your new Bible, OK?

Russell H

Russell,

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as silliness. Sanctifying and betrothing are not part of the "Adam's rib account".

Gen 1:22 reads:

wayyibhen yhwh 'elOhiym eth-haTZTZElA( aSHer-lAqaCH min-hA'AdAm le'iSHSHAh waybhi'eAh 'el-hAdAm

where TZ = sade, SH = shin, CH = het, capital vowels for long grade, e for vocal shewa, ' = aleph, and ( = ayin.

A word by word translation would be: and YHWH-God built the side/rib, which he took from the human, [in]to a woman; and he brought her to the human. The semicolon indicates an athnach in the masoretic text. A more reasonable translation is: And the rib which he had taken from the man YHWH-God fashioned into a woman; and he brought her to the man.

I see no plausible textual defense for the idea that Eve was not "made" from Adam's rib. The main verb, b-n-h, is unambiguous and means "to build." According to the story, that is what happened. To assert otherwise is to assert that the story is, factually speaking, an historical fallacy. Which, consequently, any clear-thinking modern knows to be the case.

You can't cling to textual integrity and your theory of Eve being selected from a tribe and "sanctified". The facts of the text are too specific and clear to allow that.

B Cliff Beall:

Appreciate your response, and question: "Do I agree) that Genesis 2:19 indicates specifically that after God created a man, all the other animals, male and female, were created, and brought to the man to be named, and then finally according to Genesis 2:22, God made a woman as His final act of creation"?

No, not really. Genesis 2:19 is first, parenthetically, reminding the reader that He had created all life from the substance of the earth (not ex nihilo ) and he brought them (sensibly, not EVERY single species, but) probably those most important - regarding Adam's future - and that included very H. sapiens like animals, (ie hominids), because the exercise was also to (I understand) test/develop Adam's discernment asto what would be an appropriate MATE ! Lions and even gorillas were very unlikely (though some humans do not realize/accept that) candidates, but other hominids and (see my post # 256/257) other H, sapiens were ... but for the fact they were not "chosen", or "glorified", ie inspired/bestowed with God's own likeness! Adam passed the test, or lesson, as no suitable mate was found!

Again, I refer you to posts 256/257. Genesis 2:22, (in my opinion, built from by my re-translation of the Hebrew originals, and exposited in my own book) actually tells us God selected a female, sanctified and "recreated" (gave into her the same glorification He'd given Adam) her to make her appropriate, and brought her to Adam's sleeping (now nuptial) chambers. That is why there is no contradiction to the outline of creation/origins "science" is arriving at, sans evolutionary theory and time frames.

E.C, in his terse introjection (#123) has not yet awaited any voice or idea but his own, and has not yet developed or maintained an open mind, that (still, I hope) is the ideal in scholarship and science. E.C, remember you'd have been as ardent a believer in Newtonian Physics, and the Piltdown hoax, if you were so on top of things then as you

Thank you Leszek, Steve and Keith for responses! For purposes of friendly and open discussion, I will go ahead and presume that Russell Husted’s aside: "No more than a layman reading a popularized book about modern physics is qualified to take on Hawking," was not aimed at me, as he has no way of knowing whether I am ‘qualified’ for anything at all. §:o)

Black holes are generally acceptable phenomena these days in the realm of astrophysics. A "naked" singularity is simply a point-singularity which does not include a black hole (which via radiation or observation would allow one to know of its existence). These are unlikely to occur on a cosmic scale, given the huge gravity/mass of stars. Gravitational (mass) collapse of as little as 20 tons of very heavy isotopes would suffice for a handy-dandy time machine, though. If there were anything other

Matt Neujhar

you responded to me about Genesis 2:22, telling me your (KJV) rendition of the verse:

(A) word by word translation would be: and YHWH-God built the side/rib, which he took from the human, [in]to a woman; and he brought her to the human. The semicolon indicates an athnach in the masoretic text. A more reasonable translation is: And the rib which he had taken from the man YHWH-God fashioned into a woman; and he brought her to the man.

And concluded,

I see no plausible textual defense for the idea that Eve was not "made" from Adam's rib. The main verb, b-n-h, is unambiguous and means "to build." According to the story, that is what happened. To assert otherwise is to assert that the story is, factually speaking, an historical fallacy. You can't cling to textual integrity and your theory of Eve being selected from a tribe and "sanctified". The facts of the text are too specific and clear to allow that.

So you say. And so I believed until I spent a year, or so, digging into the Hebrew. And when I reached the conclusion I wrote, I too rejected it as have you. But I was forced again and again, to re-examine it. And ultimately checked my translations with some (reluctant) messianic Hebrew experts. They conceded. The word for rib is used elsewhere, in the precise form of Gen 2:22, to represent a sleeping chamber. And all the language of verses 21 & 22 is the same used in betrothing and marriage.

I admit I am not clinging to King James textual integrity, but I am trying to keep to the Hebrew textual integrity. Now you think you are, too, obviously, as you quote/replicate (phonetically) the Hebrew, but you are applying more tradition, I think, than linguistics and textual interpretation to the old (dead, and only recently reconstructed) Hebrew language. BTW, when you go to your dictiona

Continued - If there were anything other than a very large nuclear bomb that could generate the necessary conditions, and a way to contain such a reaction without destroying the planet. Also likely to remain speculative for the time being, of course, because you’d have to collapse a good portion of an entire core assembly to accomplish something so bizarre!

And Leszek, while I'm here, PLEASE tell me how you manage to get the serif font!!?? I used to have html notes for color, but not for fonts, and the one here is particularly ugly. Thanks!

Rosemary Behan:

You wrote:

"Thankyou so much for your posts, please don't worry about the length, if it is boring anyone, they can zip through to the next. I actually took a year of Hebrew, but found it extremely difficult to ingest, which says it all for my intellectual abilities I suppose. However, after reading your post, I would be very interested in reading a good translation taken directly from the Hebrew, can you recommend one?"

Wish I could.

I have looked far and wide for almost 2 years, and found none ... other than my own, which serves as the outline and foundation of a book and all my work for the last 2 years. And it covers little more than Genesis 1 & 2. I did a little more, myself, earlier, when I was writing a nother book and was forced to verify some other verses, and reconcile seeming contradictions. I always found I could, once I gave up on the KJV (Which I do like, usually), and began scraping at the Hebrew original, much like a fossil digger scrapes at his/her latest chunk of something.

If this subject, itself is interesting enough to you, maybe we can find a way to connect outside the boards and get you a copy. Its available on CD, and also by e-mail, as well as manuscript. Otherwise, so far, your only hope is a closet and a computer with good software, and a year of privacy, it seems!

Russell H.

That is exactly the link I had in mind, thank you.

Russell,

I don't think I like your implication. Look, I don't even own a KJV, but I am sure as heck that my translation is not what the KJV says. I gave you the Hebrew of the Masoretic text in transliteration, and then I made what I believe to be a fair translation.

What is a "messianic Hebrew" expert? Could you please name either the specific "expert" whom you consulted, or, if you wish to respect this expert's privacy, could you give me the names of some scholars who are "messianic Hebrew" experts, and refer me to some of their published works? (Are you sure you don't mean "Mishnaic"?)

Could you be so kind as to cite chapter and verse these uses of the noun sade-lamed-ayin? The closest thing to a "sleeping chamber" is in Ezekial 41 (used this way also in 1 Kings 6:5,6). Here, however, the reference is to a series of rooms or cells that were arranged along the sides of the temple. They are so named because of their physical location. So far as I'm aware, the word does not anywhere in the Bible refer to a room except to denote special rooms attached to the side of a temple. The word always refers to a rib-like structure or the side of something--in this case the outer walls, the sides of a temple.

Likewise, the word is used to indicate the side of the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:12), the side of the tabernacle (Ex 26:20); the "ribs", that is, planks of the Temple wall (1 Kg 6:15,16); and the "rib", that is, ridge or terrace, of a hill (2 Sam 16:13).

The word means "rib" or "side". If you can find a biblical usage that does not have this meaning, please show it to me.

And, even

Russell,

continued....

And, even if the word did mean "sleeping chamber", Gen 2:22 would then read, "And the sleeping chamber which he took from the man [?!?], YHWH-God built/fashioned/constructed/made to/for a woman [?!?]; and he brought her to the man." That makes no sense.

Tim Thompson - on Wednesday, 01/13/99, (#160), you responded to Joy:

"Joy: The point of contention for purposes of debate is that scientists tend to assert the theory of the week (once 'proven' to immediate satisfaction until something better comes along) as Truth Absolute for as long as it lasts, while scripture is something entirely other.

I have a few decades of experience now as a scientist, and I have worked with a lot of other scientists over that time. I have yet to meet one who treats science in this way. Your assessment of how scientists approach the truth is a popular misconception, based on the culture of pop-science.... Investigators commonly assume the validity of well supported ideas until something better (inevitably) comes along, if only to get things done in the interim.....(and finally)

The real difference is that science seeks to discover the truth from the bottom up, while religion seeks to postulate truth from the top down."

I think Joy will admit she waxed exaggerating, a bit, to make her point....but it is a good point. (And certainly one you can see on the other side -- religion –, and in politics, and ... and, our whole culture) And that's not something I see limited to, or attributable to, the "culture of pop-science". I think far too many in science today have not been trained in good philosophy and methodology of science, but turned out as technicians of science, and disciples of their own mentor's favorite paradigms, and are pretty ungrounded and ready to jump on the most attractive float in the theory parade. I do agree with in your next statement. But.

I think you have made an assertion that gets to the heart of the frustrations, and passions, of many posting here, and in the GREAT DEBATE (Crea

Tim cont.

in the GREAT DEBATE (Creation v Evolution). "Science" does not always (it should, but... there's the rub) seek to discover truth from the bottom up". All too often, and nowhere more frequently than in any discipline's "Evolutionist School", the scientists do try to postulate truth from the top down. You must know I could throw a thousand articles at you, where the poor data are extrapolated to be "facts" and are explained – no, "declared"-- TRUTH by pouring the Theory (or some aberration of it) all over it, and the author, and declaring "fait accompli". And the disciples and camp followers rush to the defense. NOW, I won't even ask you to counter with similar charges about "Christians" or any other religions. I know already. And agree. It is my fondest hope to get the dogmatists on both sides to lighten up, or at least the open minded enough to carry on fruitful dialogue and research!!!

Because, as I've been trying to show, there is some very good evidence at the bottom (the real, original scriptures) that can be looked at, and evaluated in terms of the Theory of origins (really, whether you like it or not, THE other great Theory of our times!) the Bible is declaring. And look, it constantly says "Test Me". Hey, historian, it is that doctrine, in the Bible, that gave birth to the modern Western scientific method, and the great work of those early scientists who were then so persecuted by the close-minded politicians and bureaucrats of the then-dominant "granting agencies" (the "Church" – much like our NIH and NIMH etc!)

Russell H.

Russell H. It certainly is interesting enough, not to mention obviously controversial .. so I'll break my unwritten rule if CNN allows it, my e-mail is [email protected]

But, as we'd never let a freshman commandeer a dinosaur dig, we shouldn't let you commandeer the theology and doctrine in Christianity. Or announce the conclusions of your digging to the world as fact. - Russell Husted

It is not my intention to announce the conclusions of my "digging to the world as fact." I merely express an opinion.

The problem I have is with you, you self-proclaimed wise biblical scholars, who constantly quibble among yourselves, on this board and elsewhere, as to what this or that verse stated in the Bible really means...like these "experts" attempting to interpret the quatrains of Nostradamus.

Q--Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve?

A--Yes.

Q--Do you believe she was literally made out of Adams's rib?

A--I do.

Q--Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?

A--No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.

Q--You have never found out?

A--I have never tried to find

Q--You have never tried to find?

A--No.

Q--The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time?

A--I cannot say.

Q--You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration?

A--Never bothered me.

Q--There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife.

A--That is what the Bible says...

The Crossexamination of Williams Jennings Bryant by Clarence Darrow, Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925.

The defendent, an elementary school teacher lost the case despite a valiant defense by ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow. The school teacher went on to obtain a doctorate in geology and the state of Tennesse responded to this issue in the following manner:

I type </font> in front of my posts :) But don't tell the elves...

Why is it that there has to be this conflict between religion and science? Why cannot religionists simply accept science as a genuine attempt to figure out how god created the world? True, many scientists are atheists, but I suspect not most. (I am.) It just seems ludicrous to try and deny the evidence of our own senses about how the world we see today came to be. We know so much more about it than those who wrote the bible... why not accept advancing knowledge?

B Bernhard:

Sorry to have offended you so personally, but ... try not to take it, and respond so personally! But, truthfully, you are, by your own admission, just finally in possession of the text for Bible 101, and yet after reading a few pages, you speak with such final authority as to sound like you thnk you have a Phd. Your passion, and personal disdain for the people who have in their minds some ideas different from yours is not respectful, nor helpful. Now truthfully, I am sure you and I would agree on a whole lot of science. For all I know, you might have been a student of mine (ever go to UCSC? -:)?). But we are differing over whether the book (not the owners of, or believers in, or "self-proclaimed wise ...scholars"), the Bible, has some information of interest or merit.

Now I do not consider myself a "biblical scholar", never did. And I think Nostradamus is a waste. But if you go to any good science forum, or conference, or merely read a good (even refereed) journal, you will find endless "quibbling amongst themselves" over what this or that data means (the data for Bible students is verses, actually - as Mr Nuehjar shows - Hebrew words). THAT, my friend is the essence of GOOD science.... down and dirty debate over the meaning of data and hypotheses and observations—NOT the declaration of final solutions or conclusions. Even the theory of gravity, my friend (and indeed, the reality of it) is only a darn well (finally?) verified theory. It has been refined, even redefined (by Einstein), and dramatically re-conceived, in the years that General Relativity and other theories of physics in the last few years. And there are theories to explain why it is not absolutely the same as you or I would perceive (or experience) it in different places or time-space matrices. Cuz it ain't as simple as you seem to think.

And unless you get your act together, you aren't ever gong to hear us (who think there are some very correct assertions in the Bible)

Hmmm... what *are* the "correct" assertions of the bible?

You may be aware of the story of Hypatia, daughter of the great mathematician and philosopher, Theron. She was a genius in her own right having written commentaries on Diophantus' Arithmetica , Apollonius' Conics, and on Ptolemy's astronomical works. By the age of 20, she was a well respected philosopher and mathematician in the Greek colonized city of Alexandria. One day, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandrian and an ardent supporter of fundamental Biblical interpretation was passing by Hypatia's house, and he saw a great crowd of people and horses in front of her door. When he asked why there was a crowd there and what all the fuss was about, he was told that it was the house of Hypatia the philosopher and she was about to greet them. When Cyril learned this he was so struck with envy that he immediately began plotting her murder and the most heinous form of murder at that. He and fellow church followers assaulted her and flayed her alive with abiloni shells and sharp rocks. He stated that the deed was done in the name of God and that no more Greek philosophy or science would be allowed in Alexandria. Of course, no punishment befell the perpetrators and they were held in high esteem in some circles. To this day, many scholars equate this deed with the end of classical Greek civilization.

Now if the Bible extolls the modern scientific method, and the people who perpetrated these acts and similar ones against Galileo and Copernicus were merely defending the primacy of the Scriptures then why didn't the church scholars peer review these scientist's works instead of killing them and threatening them with death?

Dave On:

You still disagree, you said, because:

Sea Mammals, for example, came after land i mamals etc...

Well, there you go again :)

There are no sea mammals mentioned in Genesis 1 & 2. You are, my friend, still not going to the source data to make your own new interpretation into facts, but relying on the King James scholars' interpretation. (And most, but not all, other modern translations.) The Hebrew word they translated as "whales" -- I am pretty sure that's what you are relying on for this latest "Hmmph, balderdash!"-- was not about whales. Take another guess. Or want some help?

Since that's the only factual statement pertaining the issue, it's the only thing I'll address right now.

Russell H.

In regards to your debate with Russell Husted, about the Hebrew words in translation for "rib" in Genesis 2:22 You wrote that the original Hebrew word refers to "a rib-like structure, on the side of something".

I have wondered if the reference isn't to the X and Y chromosones. XY is male. XX is female. Perhaps the rib-like structure is the part of the chromasone added to woman's to make the XX.

Just a thought.:)

E.C. - Wednesday, 01/13/99, 9:38:23pm (#219)

Russell Husted 1/13/99 9:18pm

"Maybe you can help me with a question. In Genesis 1:16-18, God created the Sun and the Moon on the third day. If you take the literal interpretation of this, how can God create these bodies on the third day if the length of sidereal day is measured by the rising and setting of the Sun. Its like keeping time without a clock isn't it?"

The Hebrew scripture says "the third yowm" (transliterated), a word that has many other references than "day". And while we do "keep" (or measure) time without sundials, and do know that even the "sidereal day" has not been constant in the history of the earth, the real point is that yowm refers to epoch, era, or any number kinds of time periods. It is very context dependent. And Hebrew is a language with a small vocabulary. And the verse in question, if we accept (and we should, for internal consistency as we critique it) that it something spoken/dictated by God to a poor humble Hebrew, about something so grand that it exceeds even our informed imaginations (like "Big Bang" and "singularity", and "time space fabric" are easy words but have actual referents still way beyond me, truthfully) well, don't get too hung up on "day", or the fact that the word may be something very different... maybe not even constant. It's the best the poor scribe had available! Did it make a difference? Are you dismayed or unnerved if the time of T. Rex's presence is shifted or adjusted? I doubt.

Leszek Rzepecki - Wednesday, 01/13/99 (#221)

"I want to know is, how it was that god created light before he created the stars that make it... this is an example of how biblical literalism clashes with science."

No, not really. Perhaps, more, how your literalism, and somewhat inhibited ability(by the biases, wh

Leszek cont.

Sorry, had to back up and piece it together again:

inhibited ability(by the biases, which you openly admit, and I understand, and have shared myself) to just enquire, rather than conclude (and pronounce). At the Big Bang ( which I have called the "Big Whoosh", because of the way the scriptures describe the initial "moment"), the universe became. Then, in time, across its great reaches, stars formed, "ignited" or otherwise propagated their lights. When the Bible says the stars appeared, that is from an earth-surface perspective. You and I are still seeing the light(s) appear, arriving from distant bodies and events. But the real subject, in Genesis 1:14, is not the creation of stars, but the placement of (at least some of) them, and the orbital, etc, factors that create seasons and the "starry calendar". That verse actually says " I made them", and tells us why ! Interestingly, it is the only time God explains WHY he did something, in the creation account.

Russell H.

I have to agree -- Light did preceed the stars. I don't think that this parallel from Genisis is particularly meaningfull, but it does exist.

I actually have no real problem with Genisis, especially since I believe it is a parable to describe the birth of moral awareness in mankind, not the formation of the universe.

I do have significant problems with some other's interpretations of Genisis, especialy when these interpretations are used to either restrict rational thought or to defame the innocent (infants.)

I think that the writers of the scriptures - being divinely inspired, would tend to use as concise a language as possible. If epoch was what they meant then why wasn't it handed down as epoch? If it was the fault of those who transcribed the original texts then why isn't the correction made? Without the ability to go back and fix errors, you end up with creationist apologetics.

The ancient Hindu scribes had little difficulty in describing time spans lasting billions of years as evident in the Bhagidvad Gita. It is likely that the Hebrews could contemplate large numbers and grand concepts as well.

I don't get dismayed or unnerved by new discoveries just old fallacies. The shifting of T-Rex's presence to some other epoch other than the Cretaceous would invalidate several fossil dating techniques. Until creationists can come up with a successful alternatives to C-14 dating that proves as reliable in placing that age of certain objects as radiocarbon dating has been then maybe the shift of T-Rex's dominant epoch will be more palatable to the most respected archeologists.

Maybe I can help you out. Current cosmological principles dictate that following the big bang, temperature where so high that the expanding universe was essentially radiation dominated. With time, the differentiation of the fundamental forces occurred along with the formation of leptons, meson, and quarks. A little while later (10E-19 S), baryons made there grand entrance as quark triplets and the universe continued to expand and cool. It is arguably estimated that roughly 300,00 years after the big bang, the decoupling of radiation and matter occurred since energy densities become sufficient low for baryonic to exist in isolation. Beyond this point, the development of galaxies and stars would be possible since atoms did not immediately ionize due to high temperatures in the cosmos. In essence, light (the radiation era) preceded stars (the matter era).

There I have helped you out enough.

Keith Fosberg Post 281:

What did you mean by some people's interpretation of Genesis, is used to defame the Innocent(infants)? I'm just curious. If you dont' mind?:-)

Your passion, and personal disdain for the people who have in their minds some ideas different from yours is not respectful, nor helpful. - Russell Husted

I agree, that when a new scientific theory is advanced, many arguments as to its validity arise among scientists. Nevertheless, experimental verifications in accord to testing a scientific theory will eventually either confirm or deny the predictions of such theory (e.g. E=mc².)

I must depart. I leave you with:

Veni, vidi, territus sum, curcurri!

I came, I saw, I got scared, I ran!

No need for that. If you are replying to something I said on weekdays, take your time. I will not be around until the evening anyway. Some of us have to work. Yes, I do have internet access on my computer at work, but I generally use it for business purposes only. Weekends are different, however.

I think the question is whether it runs at all, or whether it merely is. If there is a God, I am of the opinion that he/she/it probably has an existence in more than 3 dimensions.

Rubbish.

I think E.C. made an obvious and valid observation.

Joy, this tell me "while I am here" business is silly. This is a message board. This is not a chat room. The messages do not disappear. The messages you wrote three days ago are still available. Do you read only the messages that happen to be on the default page when you access the message board?

Bernhard, I would not consider Russell a Bible scholar. However, while the Bible is a religions book, I consider true Bible Scholarship to be a science. If you wish to read a "scientific paper," look up Genesis in any good encyclopedia. The manner in which the meaning and the theology of the different books is obtained by modern Bible scholarship is on a very scientific basis. The real scholars do it right.

Russel, you seem to be aching for someone to ask for your credentials. Okay, I will ask. Where did you get your Ph.D and in what. What scientific papers did you write, and where did you teach other than UCSC. And by the way, what does UCSC stand for?

The bible says quite clearly that creation of light preceeded the creation of the sun and stars, which are the source of light. If biblical scholars want to treat the bible as a scientific treatise, and some evidently do, then you need to come up with an explanation of contradictions like that. Otherwise, how can we take the bible seriously?

I fully agree, though I'm hardly a religionist and haven't been a practicing scientist for quite awhile. Too bad others do not share your view, but I guess everyone's got their Prideful axe to grind...

And I do thank Russell for his kind attempt to defend my statement about scientific absolutes, but I do not retract that either. Perhaps in the years since Shapley, McLaughlin, et. al. believed in their version of Truth vehemently enough to destroy anyone who challenged, things have changed. I have seen little evidence to support this, though will continue to hope the new graduates will behave better. Somehow, Mr. Beall's attitude doesn't proffer much hope, does it?

I have a better one, though probably not a totally accurate translation for some scholars here:

"If any man amongst you seemeth wise in the ways of this world, let him become a fool, that he may be truly wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. He will entrap the wise men in the web of their own craft." I Corinthians 3: 18, 19

Which also, interestingly enough in view of your Old German Saying (it does get around, as wisdom generally tends to do), also happens to be the divination passage specific to the unnumbered (zero) major arcana Tarot card - The Fool.

Leszek, I do not accept that Bible scholars want to treat the Bible as a scientific treatise, but rather, it is my observation that they examine it's intent, meaning and theology on a scientific basis. I would consider Matt a Bible scholar. At least, he approaches the contents of the Bible the way I expect Bible scholars to approach the text of the Bible.

Joy, all I intended was to say you didn't have to hurry. You have all day. I am not sure I understand what you meant by: "I have seen little evidence to support this, though will continue to hope the new graduates will behave better. Somehow, Mr. Beall's attitude doesn't proffer much hope, does it"?

I am neither young nor a college graduate. I am probably old enough to be your father.

"You have all day. I am not sure I understand what you meant by: "I have seen little evidence to support this, though will continue to hope the new graduates will behave better. Somehow, Mr. Beall's attitude doesn't proffer much hope, does it"?"

I have an entire lifetime, though I'd hoped to catch Leszek before he left this afternoon, that's all. An active discussion is nice if possible, though I can deal with hit and runs.

If you have not functioned within the scientific community, you cannot know whereof I speak in the context of 'scientific absolutes.' From the inside, they're are no different than dueling religionists, they just have more power. I wonder if any of the old-timers here recall the concept of 'internal exile.' Or have ever even considered how that concept might apply to a 'free' country...

Indeed, you have helped him overmuch, but perhaps that is why we are drawn to this debate. In the vein of Negative Entropy, I will post the following for perusal, before the exercise of my "freedom of speech" is again effectively thwarted in this new (but decidedly dangerous) media. It concerns the nature of Time, which is more pertinent to this discussion than many may think, so it also goes out to Steve who expressed interest.

You really are a scientist? Hum. Could I inquire what kind? A complete biography would be fine :-) Actually, I disagree with your premise regardless. I think scientists are not much different from most people. They get married. They have children. They make mortgage payments. They worry about their jobs.

I can not believe you said scientist have more power. More power than who? Politician and Religious leaders have power. Scientists have no power :-) Come on! And as for your insider view, I suspect that my outsider view is at least as enlightening.

Negative Entropy - I hooked up with the phenomenon back in ‘77 while working on a crystalline substance for shielding a spacecraft that would also function in atmospheres (of all densities). This was back when "fusion drive" was the pipe-dream of the moment, and I was singularly unimpressed with the gazillion-dollar Shiva. I was hoping for a gravity drive, far more practical as well as non-violent.

The orbital facility to produce the substance is just now being launched, but I did have a small amount grown in an artificial field. Sort of a Buckyball [carbon] on a .005 angstrom matrix. When it was shaped to the proper curvature (not easy), odd things began to happen in the enclosed space. Entropy became almost nonexistent.

The implications were astounding if the drive could have been developed (they went for violent, of course). A kind of negentropic double-whammy which theoretically might have rendered sub-light space travel practically instantaneous for all concerned.

The project was derailed when a separate and far more serious time anomaly occurred less than 2 years later, which ends rather badly I’m afraid.

The same concept - in an academic setting with natural crystals - got the Nobel Prize and I just shook my head in dismay. One of those "ether" things, I guess. An idea impatient for discovery...

I was at one time a physicist. I am now a professional fool, and have been for nearly 20 years. Took that Bible quote to heart, I guess, and spoke with my life what I was not allowed to speak with my mouth. A full biography is unfortunately unavailable in this forum, sorry. Too much blood under the bridge...

Yeah, it was fun. Good night and cheers.

Joy, better get that ticket to Christchurch quickly, they are sold out in many cases. Many are coming for the millenium first dawn, some for America's Cup, some for Apec, and some to be near the Olympics .. too many I'd say. BTW, that's my hometown.

<again sigh> And Cheers to you as well, Cliff. I'm off to dreamland! You're right of course, about scientists. Sometimes they worry more about their children (and other loved ones) than about their jobs. Just like other 'regular' people would.

Also have a date on St. Patrick's Day, 2,000. We'll make that one for sure! Got to see a priest at the Taos Inn, New Mexico, who made me promise back in 1980 (said we still had a lot to learn). Hope we have learned enough, or maybe not. Still, they've got green beer that doesn't taste at all like green beer!

Good night, and pleasant dreams, as it's nearly 2 a.m. here!

The bible says quite clearly that creation of light preceeded the creation of the sun and stars, which are the source of light. - Leszek Rzepecki

True, but you do not need suns and stars to have light.

Leszek,

The initial reference was to a specific verse: "test all things and hold to that which is true." I was apprising Bernhard of this verse for his consideration.

Nick,

Good point. My intent was to present the penal colony as one of several factors. Actually, the South is also responsible for many innovations and good literature, too, so my outside hope is that Bernhard's experience was exceptional.

I guess I should have been more specific and distinguished between bible scholars, who study the bible and mark the ways it is (or isn't) consistent with the real world, and the biblical literalists who would have us believe that *all* the events written of in the bible happened exactly as written.

I can accept that some people believe that Genesis (which is the main bone of contention in the science v. religion debate) has to be consistent with the world as we know it, and so search for the "correct" interpretation to fit with what we know of reality. That's ok. But I do have a problem with folk who would have us re-write our concepts of reality so that they comport with Genesis :) That's far too narrow a POV.

Actually, the South is also responsible for many innovations and good literature, too, so my outside hope is that Bernhard's experience was exceptional. - MR. Smith

Are you implying that offsprings of incestuous relationships are responsible for the South's cultural achievements? This would be a preposterous assumption.

Good Point. I wish I could answer your valid question about scientific accuracy and the Bible account, with a definite example. In reading the Bible, many records reflect things, that mankind didn't know, but a Creator, would know.

I believe what we have here is a fine point-counterpoint. Science is an intellectual exercise self-limited to exactness and literalism, which is just what it must be. I cannot speak to Biblical literalists of the more extreme variety. Still, it is possible that the 'map' Genesis provides is symbolically (or psychologically) valid and worthy of consideration as science moves incrementally closer to the answers it seeks. IMHO, because we humans are neither cold machinery nor supernatural sprites. We are a bit of both.

It's possible, sure... it's possible there's life on Mars, too. I appreciate that most people need to look beyond science to find meaning in their lives, and that religion is one way of doing this. As long as Genesis is seen as a story about creation, and not as a literal description of creation events, there need never be any conflict. And perhaps there are ways of interpreting Genesis that are fully consistent with modern scientific theory. What sticks in my throat is when I'm asked to overthrow science because some scientific finding contradicts the literal word in Genesis. It seems to make more sense to me to reinterpret scripture in the light of what science reveals, rather than the other way around.

You are most rational in this observation, Leszek, which presupposes my original point about the nature and purpose of the Biblical accounts. At the same time, it is just as rational to recognize that the Biblical account itself has changed not at all through the totality of its existence, while scientific 'Truth' changes on a regular basis.

Perhaps you are not seriously considering what this means in terms of the discussion here, which I personally hope will lead to a greater understanding and mutual respect on both sides. The fact that the scripturalists here can see and point out interpretations which do not contradict the scientific theory of the moment should be encouraging to you, not discouraging. It may indicate that science is moving in the right direction, at least in terms of the more psychological aspects of human nature. To ignore those aspects of human nature seems to me to be arrogant in the extreme, and renders science completely useless to humanity apart from its economic benefit. Which comes and goes with politics, after all.

I am not defending the stridently prideful among us, whose intolerance is there for all to see. I am defending the core discussion.

At the same time, it is just as rational to recognize that the Biblical account itself has changed not at all through the totality of its existence, while scientific 'Truth' changes on a regular basis. - Joy busey

Of course has the biblical account not changed, because the propositions stated there are not falsifyable. Have you ever seen creation epics of other cultures change? Nah!

I don't see science as moving in any particular direction... perhaps some findings of science are more congenial to the human pysche, and some less... those less congenial, such as the apparent dethronement of mankind as the central purpose of the universe, will be challenged more forcefully. However, I have faith that the truth will out - whether it's written in a science text or in the bible. Truth can be recognized by putting the assertion to the test. Those assertions that stand the test of time can be relied on, those that can't will be discarded. I've every confidence in the ability of science to administer those tests.

I fully agree, which just shows to go that you do understand the difference between the fields in this forum and appreciate those differences for what they represent. I have read more strident opinions on both sides which have missed the point. "Let There Be Light" cannot be rendered false because science has reasonably demonstrated that stars took a relatively long time to form, any more than "Let There Be Light" can reasonably be asserted to falsify the scientific claim that stars took a long time to form.

I merely think it would be useful to both camps to understand their ultimately common quest.

Testing of what, Leszek? Denominational interpretations of Holy Writ? Why in the world would science waste its expensive time doing something as useless as that? The Writ is the Writ, the interpretations (like scientific theories) are subject to modification as reality dictates. Sure, it sometimes takes the popes and pontiffs way too long to admit their errors, but you can’t claim science is fundamentally different in that. It’s a human nature-based personality flaw again common to all.

:) except that scientists have a vested interest in exposing the errors of their peers, whereas priests connive at suppressing them! We would hardly be having debates about scientific creationism were is not for the desire of a certain priesthood to preserve their interpretation of scripture literal and intact.

Of course, those interpreters of scripture who are able to integrate modern scientific ideas into their reading of gospel will not have such conflicts... I think that's why Catholicism is able to combine its theology with scientific understanding so successfully these days (they learned from past mistakes :)... they have a flexible view of scripture, and realise that it needs careful interpretation. The meaning of a scriptural word or concept is not always obvious, and when it conflicts with reality, needs to be examined very carefully indeed.

Oh, I've no time for scientific prieshoods, either :) from my POV, all dogmas are meant to be rigorously questioned, not blindly accepted, whether they are set up by scientists or theologians.

E-field, B-field? Strength?

C60 violating the zeroth law of thermodynamics. I have got to see this! Was a Bose-Einstein condensate detected?

By the way C60 (Buckyballs) have been used in the past to form the only noble gas compound possible C60-Xenon, etc... This was done by the process of laser cooling which diminsished the kinetic energy of the gas atoms to the point where they could be incorporated within the confines of the C60 matrix. However, s=CplnT > 0 throughout the process.

Hey if the negentropic drive works. I'll will be the first to buy stock in your company ;-)

Joy and EC .. it sounds soooo exciting even when like me you don't understand a word of it!! I was reading the other day about the ions that actually accelerate to speeds of 1 kilometre per second UPWARDS and escape the gravity of the earth during the aurora, they are sending up a rocket [Caper] to measure bits and pieces. Is this connected to the sort of thing you're talking about? [In words of one syllable please.]

The aurora is an optical emission from the upper atmosphere caused by the impact of electrons and other charged particles from outside the atmosphere on the atoms and molecules which make up air. When these particles collide, they tend to excite atoms in the atmosphere. Excited atoms are unstable so they get rid of this excess energy by emitting light. The light that they emit is the aurora. It is not directly related to C60 since this complex carbon molecule does not occur naturally - it has only been manufactured in the lab.

As a sidelight, a colleague of mine is working on the phenomena known as sprites and jets. These are luminous emissions that occur above intense thunderstorms. It is very interesting stuff since the cause of these emissions has not yet been ascertained.

Bernhard Schopper - Thursday, 01/14/99, (#285)

Re your remarks "However, in regard to those who believe in creationist science, and in the validity of biblical proclamations, I can only quote this old German saying: "To be wise among the fools, one has to be foolish."

I am not a creation scientist, by the way, IF that was your inference. And I'm not really impressed by that particular school of work. I don't accept most of their premises (ie "young earth", or that a young earth is even documented or asserted in the Bible, and many others). Rather, I think they are making the same error that most other people (Christian, nonChristian, and antiChristian) make; to wit, accept and assume the "traditional" (which I usually refer to as the King James Version, though this is not altogether accurate nor fair to that version, it's just convenient) translation and representation of the (Hebrew) source scriptures in Genesis. Even so, I have observed amongst the few I've met or heard of the Science Creationist persuasion:

1) There are among them some rather intelligent, and well trained, and careful workers and researchers,

2) There have been some rather interesting hypotheses and experiments that have caught the interest of even scientists outside their own

3) As honest and sincere men, whether they succeed or not, whether they share our (or your own) theories and beliefs and paradigms or not, they deserve respect and civility.

And, as to your German saying (which I read as intended to offend someone), well, without bothering to look them up, I would submit there are others to the effect that "he who thinks himself wise is truly a fool", an "the best part of wisdom is to know your own limitations, and lack of knowledge", etc.

Russell H

It was a project spun from my father’s work designing heat shields for NASA (via GE). I come from a full house of the scientifically-inclined, none of us particularly intimidated by the other’s talents.

If I recall correctly, it wasn’t C60, just a prevariate. Matrix too small for a full Bucky. Designed originally for high energy gamma detection in a laser photospectrometer, and at the time the most costly substance on earth. I believe it was grown in an E-field, I do not know the strength. Wore out half a dozen serious machines getting it to the proper shape, as it was incredibly hard despite its plasticity! Perhaps 2 dozen such crystals still exist in the trash pile of history, rendered obsolete by the perfection of newer technologies. Unlimited power and funding has its good points, I suppose.

It wasn’t a negentropic drive, it was a gravity drive, but that was my brother’s project. Working pro or con, it had the potential to not only go REALLY fast (thus negentropic by relativistic definition), but also to land, fly and hover in atmospheres with densities higher than Jupiter. Would’a been a great thing, but that’s not the option chosen.

As a guitar-playing friend once said, "If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?" That’s a question I couldn’t readily answer off the top of my head either. §:o)

Cliff Beall - Thursday, 01/14/99, (#288)

First, as to your opinion, "Bernhard, I would not consider Russell a Bible scholar.", thank you, nor would/do I. Indeed, I am the furthest thing from it. All my formal education was secular, and in various ("mainstream") sciences. And that is what I took to a very limited study of the Bible, primarily the creation account. And it is probably because I was not educated, or indoctrinated, in any seminary or school of theology, that I had the ability (or foolishness) to approach the Bible with such freedom, ie to read anew and decide for myself what the original scriptures said. I had no theology or denominational beliefs to protect. I had an open mind!

However, the sense of your remark "If you wish to read a ‘scientific paper,' look up Genesis in any good encyclopedia."escapes me. As does "The manner in which the meaning and the theology of the different books is obtained by modern Bible scholarship is on a very scientific basis. The real scholars do it right." I know that some here are theologists, and some Bible scholars, others anti-Bible scholars and scientists, and others merely anti(fill in the blank!). I am merely someone who wanted to practice what I preached, and reach an independent opinion. And started from scratch. I have a background in several sciences that helped me evaluate that one piece of the Bible, from the view of an outsider. Period.

As to your post (#289)

"Russel, you seem to be aching for someone to ask for your credentials. Okay, I will ask. Where did you get your Ph.D and in what. What scientific papers did you write, and where did you teach other than UCSC. And by the way, what does UCSC stand for? "

No, I do not want anyone to ask for my credentials. They are not the issue, and if they were, they would always be inadequate for someone, and unnecessarily overly impressive to someone else. I hav

Cliff, as usual, I overtalked, so here's the end of my remarks to you

I have said (well, more implied) I know the "mainstream" evolution paradigm, and scientific methods, and I have said I am no Bible scholar. But I have no desire to be the subject, but desire that the translation and interpretations I have developed of Genesis 1 & 2 be the subject, in hopes that some of you might have/develop some broader perspectives, more open minds, and understanding (as the cnn-written intro to this forum asks) of the overlap and common ground that MAY very well be in the Bible (rather than "religion", or "faith", in general). The problem, obviously, is that many, here, have absolutely no interest in doing that, but in throwing the cleverest and/or most bombastic mud at each other. The Inet is famous for the ego problem, unfortunately. Nonetheless, I'm willing to try to stay on course in the one area I think I might have something new to contribute, if you are willing to "talk", and not just ask a question, so you can say "Rubbish". (Another erudite scholar just did that, you haven't, yet, have you?)

Oh yes, UCSC = U of Calif, Santa Cruz

Russell H

Is your friend working out of Oklahoma, E.C.? Baddest thunderstorms I've ever seen! (And yes, I do in fact know a couple of funnel-chasers)...

Hi Joy.

To tell you the truth, specialized organic chemistry is out of my field too but it is interesting that complex carbon matrices were considered for shielding material - I did not know that.

If I can put it oh so diplomatically, I don't think that antigravity drive will work. Legendary physicist Dr. Richard Feynmann was once asked if he could conceive of an antigravity fdrive. He said, "Yes. you are standing on it - the ground." You may be able to achieve antigravity put you would need to obtain an object of negative mass - a concept too bizarre for my fragile grip on reality.

Intellgence and wealth do not always go hand-in-hand. Johannes Kepler, the father of Celestial Mechanics died a pauper. I will not have to worry about this, however, since my wife tells me that I have the intelligence of a container of cottage cheese and I'm impecunious to boot.

Russell - Please do not take easy offense to the posts here, some of which are indeed designed to scare you away. You do have much to offer of value, and I for one enjoy reading what you have to say. I just don't often have anything particular to say about it, which I figure is okay as well.

Do have a personal question, tho. Have you done any independent research into the 'Q' document? You said you've stuck pretty much to Genesis in this debate, but I've heard rumors an existent copy of the original 'Q' is out there. Anything?

Actually, he is doing most of his work at the outskirts of Phoenix, AZ. These emissions are drowned out by conventional lightning strikes so that a specialized technique is used in which the top of the supercell is imaged using optical, UV, and spectral sensors while the remainder of the storm is below the horizon! Previously, the only way to obtain data concerning sprites and jets was through high altitude experimental aircraft (ER-2) and though remote sensing from satellites and the Space Shuttle.

I spent my formative years in the forsaken corn and cow haven known as Iowa. I did manage to witness a tornado one time. It was fascinating beyond words. Luckily it was to far to pose an emminent threat striking a field outside of Ames, Iowa, but it was close enough to hear the sound. It has been called the "finger of God".

I am really genuinely interest in what you have to say. No sarcasm, just the truth.

UCSC is a very good university by the way.

Sprites and jets are usually restricted to mesosphere heights. Some characteristics lend themselves to comparisons to aurora but they are not directly triggered by incoming ions from space but rather by the tremendous E-fields generated at the top of thunderstorms.

I do not believe that they have anything to do with Eathlights.

If memory serves, was H.A.A.R.P. the government funded secret project designed to send pulses radio waves into the ionosphere for the purpose of influencing weather patterns or disrupting communication? I don't really believe that H.A.A.R.P. could really accomplish any of these goals with any success rate. Interannual variability in the form of the El Nino/Southern Oscillation and other periodicities in climate controlled by air-sea and air-surface interactions are much more of an influence on weather than ionospheric anomalies. In a time of war, communications could more effectively be disrupted by EM-pulses generated by thermonuclear devices in orbit (SDI project).

Hardy har har har, E.C. If you're cottage cheese, I'm probably plain yogurt (yuck!). Fear not, Mr. Kepler lives on in fond memory and respectful memorium! A baby I personally helped deliver just this last spring was suitably named:

Kepler Gabriel Battles

and will prove to live up to all those handles, I'm sure!

Don't mean to ignore you, Rosemary! Greetings my friend, and welcome this evening.

A note about gravity drive, E.C. - It's all in the shielding, given the proposition that there indeed does exist a gravitational quanta. But then, they're not ready for that yet...

Supersymmetry - the rectification of integer spin Boson of the electroweak force and half integer spin Fermion (leptons, baryons, etc..) must occur with the corresponding verification of the existence of the gravitino, and photino must occur before you have a handle on the properties of the gravitational quanta and their supposed anti-particles.

I shall have to call it a night. I leave with

Ecce potestas casei.

Behold the power of cheese.

Chip off the old meson, E.C. Playing exclusively tonight at the Supercluster Bar and Grill, that incredibly exciting new Reggae band; Colored Gluons! Backed, by the way, with the horn section from Fractional Muons...

<sigh>. Soon come, my friend. They're getting very close.

Goodnight, o' Gouda (The Big Cheese). Sleep well!

I believe there is a significant difference between a Bible scholar and a scripturalist (a term I am borrowing from Joy, but the way). Ideally, a Bible scholar should be intent on obtaining a complete understanding of the words, as written. Therefore, rather than attempt to stretch the meaning of a passage to account for some modern discovered fact, the true Bible scholar seeks first to discover authorship and to deny untenable authorship when appropriate, obtain the basis of the author's reasoning and style, as well as to understand the meaning as intended by the author and, finally, to discover the theological implications.

If an anomaly is found in a verse, the scholar seeks to discover the reason for the anomaly. If a scripture is found to be in conflict with secular records, for example, the true scholar will simply admit to the conflict and attempt to explain the context in which the error occurred. (A scholar will not seek to cover it up, but will instead seek to understand why the author may have erred.)

In contrast, the scripturalist seeks to find in the verses a basis for believing that the verses predict all that modern science has discovered, and insists that science should be grateful for the scientific guidance provided by the Bible.

I can accept that also--if the belief is uneducated. It bothers me not in the least if most people believe the Genesis account of creation on the basis that that was what they were taught to believe by their parents and church leaders. But if one professes to be intent on finding scientific value in the scriptures, I submit that honest investigation means to discover the meaning of the verses as written, and not to read into the verses something that should not be read, merely to serve expediency. I submit that to serve expediency in this manner is not honest, and religion, if it is to be meaningful at all--must be honest.

I have no problem with a map. A map should be able to help me find my way to a desired destination, however. If the map is helpful to me in finding my way, than I say it is useful. However, if I must first find my way to my destination before I am able to discover how the map might have helped me, if I had "interpreted" it correctly, I would submit that it was not of much value to me as a map.

You have something of a point. We do not know how life originated on this planet, or even if it did. How do we know that is was not brought here in some manner? Actually, here is no convincing evidence that life must have started in some primordial soup any more than we can know there was a creator. Scientists can only speculate on how evolution may has provided the mechanism for the beginning of life on this planet.

On the other hand, the Biblical account is still just as incorrect as it ever was while the scientific explanation is probably getting closer and closer to the truth.

I think it is desirable to investigate the scriptures on a scientific basis to discover the truth it may contain. However, remember that "what happened" and "the truth" may be two entirely different things. For example, fiction may contain great truth whereas an accounting of certain specific events, which even if true and correct, may be totally devoid of significant "truth." The Book of Ruth, in the Bible, for example, is a work of fiction. I am convinced of that. But I am also convinced that it is a great work of fiction--indeed, one of the noblest works of art ever conceived by the mind of man. It may be fiction, but it is the truth!

The value of an open mind is that it may receive truth. To be open to the sewing of a vest onto a button is not as desirable, however. I think there is value in skepticism.

In the sense that a scientist is one who uses the scientific method, the Bible scholars that I have discussed are scientists. People who bypass the scientific method are not scientists regardless of education or vocation. Science is defined by the scientific method.

I describe myself as a layman who has an appreciation for the scientific method and it's use. Just because I do not have a college degree does not mean that I fail to understand how it is applied and what it says. I have enormous respect for credentials fairly earned. Nevertheless, I must tell you that an advanced degree and a well reasoned argument is much more impressive to me than an advanced degree only.

But you seem to desire to wear them on your sleeve. Immediately before the above statement, you again mention your background saying that you "have a background in several sciences." I think it is reasonable to ask which sciences? What implication should we draw?

It is true that your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 will speak for itself. However, you can not escape becoming the subject as well. You are judged by the work you do. And rightly so.

Sorry, I should have explained my objection. The idea that God should have an underlying purpose of tempting Adam with bestiality by bringing the animals to him-- ostensibly for the purpose of having them named--was very trying to my sensibilities. It is, in my opinion, a very unattractive idea that has no merit whatever.

Just an additional bit of information regarding the geneology outlined in the Old Testament. The "highlight" of recorded geneolgy reflect the linage of Jesus Christ. Read in Matthew 1: 1-16 and Luke 3:23-38.

Also I'm not a Bible scholar, and looking in an enclyclopedia for information on Genesis, may be a start, but I wouldn't look there for in depth information of details on any subject.

Also to Lezsek and others who would like a definite knowledge of the correctness of the Bible. A challenge for you:...

Ask The God of the universe to reveal himself to you. You, if sincere will receive an answer. It may take time, but He will honor your request.

Ask The God of the universe to reveal himself to you. You, if sincere will receive an answer. - Marie M.

So what do I look for? Weeping religious relics? Faces appearing in clouds and on Mars? Words forming in an alphabet soup?

I'm not likely to spend 40 days in a desert, so I'll have to wait, I guess. Just like when you join this Maharishi cult, you'll be promised that in time you'll learn to levitate. In the meantime, be prepared to donate generously to the coffers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

...In the meantime, be prepared to donate generously to the coffers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Hmm, just makes me think the coffers of the Church of Rome are pretty full too. Are the ducats coming from all these people waiting for Him to reveal Himself?- Bernhard Schopper-

No, not at all. Money has little meaning in what I'm talking about.

I don't know how God will reveal himself to you or another individual. Only the way He does it will be meaningful and real to you. Sometimes it occurs gradually, or one may suddenly have a flash of insight, they didn't have before. Not exactly cold,hard, science, but REAL none the less.:)

In this culture..science, technology and money rules..that is obvious...religion has taken a back seat and probably will die out in the next 50 years or so.

Especially when people like Jerry Falwell proclaim that the Anti Christ must be jewish!!...just goes to show you the mentalities that abound making religion ludicrous!!

On the other hand...science has their bunch too...there are many who still believe the earth is flat!!!

...Only the way He does it will be meaningful and real to you. - Marie M.

Well, I'll keep my eyes open and my hearing aid tuned up.

Yes, it is interesting that the New Testament stories and genealogies are just as inconsistent as the stories and genealogies of the Jewish Bible.

Of course, but I'm not about to suggest that somebody go out and purchase a $50.00 book which might give more comprehensive information. The information in the Americana or the Britannica is more than adequate to illustrate my points.

I am not out to convert anyone anyway. I just like to argue.

Are you referring to the answer I got when I was thirteen, Marie, when I went forward to be saved: to kneel and pray, to ask forgiveness of my sins and accept salvation. I guarantee you that I was absolutely sincere then. Hell, I was scared sincere!

The only problem was that contrary to my expectations, based on what I had been told, when I afterwards returned to my seat, I found that I was not a "new" person, that I did not have a new spirit, and I was not interested only in spiritual things. Instead, I found that I still loved the world and worldly pressures, like baseball, movies and rock and roll. It occurred to me, therefore, as I sat there in that pew, that I had not been "saved." Something had gone wrong and I wondered what it could be. (I got my answer some time later when I heard a sermon on the "Unpardonable Sin." At that point, it all made sense, and I knew I was doomed and would eventually go to Hell.)

Is that what you meant? I suppose not :-)

I have not seen evidence of that. Religion seems quite healthy to me. Practically everyone I know personally believes in the creation account.

Hey all.

I've been in an email and essay exchange with a professor and editor of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy whose interested in Anselm's ontological argument, and now, I find myself challenged to reconsider some of my favorite judgments about religion. I want to lay out my bias, ignorance, presuppositions, and the challenges I now face, but before doing so (upcoming post), a little catching up first.

First, I've truly enjoyed catching up on the exchanges.

Leszek wrote:

I might disagree, in part. The "rules" for living, presumably ethical "rules" here, I think can be derived from science. If you find this is worth pursuing, I'd love to play with the possibilities.

E.C.

Magic and miracle may be thus distinguished. It's been equally well stated in comparative religious studies that magic and miracle tend to merge as object-correlates of religious consciousness, in the cases of "hierophanies," or manifestations of the sacred (after Eliade). I'd like to take a turn at exploring the consequence of "hierophany" in an upcoming post.

(concluded next post)

Joy, (and Russel?)

(concluded)

Joy wrote:

Welcome to Buddhism (Kegon) :).

Religions advocating the objective existent of God (contra strictly mentalist gods, i.e., Tantric Buddhism) employ various metaphysical hypotheses in order to place upon "God," not upon humans, the burden of proof, or better, the burden of achieving adequate expressive relations with humans "in time."

Surely, many religions do have special categories of time, illo tempore, primeval, primordial, original, or "God-time," which is different from ordinary human constructs about time, including scientific space-time. And yet, while God may inhabit some illo tempore, some unique time or non-time, the fact remains that God still has a burden to relate to us humans by use of a temporal frame that we can understand, using temporal relations making sense to us, condescend to the limits of our own consciousness.

So, no matter what other dimensions of temporality exist, from superstrings to the Swara's Relationless Absolute, the burden is upon "God" to achieve forms of temporal relatedness that make basic sense to humans. Again, this is an express dogma of many (not all) religions posting the objective existence of "God."

This is why questions of time-space confined to theoretical physics simply, in my judgment, seem to beg the question. The point is that any "God" (idea) approximating God (real) has the burden of speaking to us in terms we can understand. The advantage of metaphysics over physics is precisely that advantage: to state the ways in which "God" becomes God.

Michael

Sorry that I've not followed up on the question of religion and science as alternative sources of evaluation of homosexuality.

If you're still around, I'd like to add my two-cents worth!

Cheers

Matt, and Russell H.

Matt wrote regarding biblical interpretation:

Matt and Russell, would either of you care to enumerate in a simple list, just a broad overview, and in simple declarative statements, what you both judge criteria for achieving good (relatively adequate) interpretations of biblical texts?

Cliff Beall:

I really appreciate your reply, and hope to converse further. Right now I've been tied up in some meetings (and classes) with a Rabbi who is teaching me some stuff, and maybe getting a few ideas from me, as he ,too, recently spent a couple of years focussing exclusively on Genesis 1 & 2. Maybe I'll have even more to say, or maybe I'll have less after the conference (which runs through Monday, so I'll be silent, but not departing!

BTW, my point about Adam and the animals was exactly what you (mis?)took me for ... ie that the idea is absurd that God would have tempted Adam into bestiality, BUT, only makes sense (since the scriptures really make it clear that there was a partner hunt going on) if there were HOMINIDS, even H. sapiens to be available, and the test would be (what Christiand mean by "discernment"... spiritual discrimination and awareness) to notice none were yet right for him ... because he had the special "likeness" of God, which we are earlier told was "breathed" or "inspired" into Adam.

Hope I'm clear. Typing off the cuff is dangerous, and when in a hurry to get out the door, even more so!

Russell H.

Matt Neujhar:

Matt, I'm not ignoring you (see my post to Cliff, revious), but busy (learning a little more about the Hebrew language and culture, in fact. I'd prepped an answer to you when a stubborn, and mysterious, computer blipped a few times and erased all I'd written, and stored about your original questions, and continued to blip away even my backup files! Hate those "illegal operation" notes!!!!!!!

But, I recall a couple of your points, I can answer quickly. Yes, the Masoretic is amongst the best, though, I think in Genesis 1 & 2, any Torah, or interlinear, is pretty reliable as a source.

And I meant "messianic" Jew, on who has converted to Christianity!

And yes, Ezek 41 is one of two instances I relied on, and the fuller sense of many others. And check the indefinitemness of Hebrew prepositions and articles, and the extreme context sensitivity of all Hebrew, which I'll try to talk about more if we need. The "rib" story is not crucial to most of my work or book, but is a critical point for many of a "non-believer" or "scientific" orintation.

Later, Russell H.

Jim

Very good question; one might even say a primo question. O, laugh if you want, at my silly vocabulary.....

Anyway, as for an answer: it depends one what you are trying to do. For example, among explicitly religious interpretations, I have this nasty personal bias of giving Jewish interpreters far more latitude than Christian interpreters. Why? Because Judaism has embraced a doctrine which allows, in my opinion, for greater textual manipulation than does any Christian tradition. Judaism hasa doctrine of the Dual Torah; that is, there are two Torahs: the first is the law given to Moses on Sinai, the Pentateuch, the Written Torah. The second is the Oral Torah: the doctrine that in addition to the (putative) writings of Moses being authoritative, likewise there is an authoritative oral tradition, again starting with Moses, which was only reduced to writing in the several couple centuries of the Common Era--first in the corpus of the Mishna, then in the Talmuds.

This doctrine allows for authority to reside not only in the fixed text, but in the persons and ideas of the Rabbis, who take great imaginative lattitude in their interpretation and reading of the texts.

The closest thing to this in Christianity is the Catholic emphasis on the special role of the clergy (who, for example, monopolize the magical power to execute the transubstantiation). However, as far as my knowledge of Church History goes, this special status of the clergy does not apply to the ability to reinterperet and mold scripture. But in Judaism, the Bavli, the Babylonian Talmud, written/ collected around (I believe, some one correct me if wrong) the 5th century CE, the thoughts of a bunch of Rabbis, is authoritative. Not only authoritative, but self contradictory. "R. Johano

Jim

cont.

"R. Johanon says [x]. But, Rabbi Ishmael says, 'No! Heaven forbid...'" is a common occurance in the Mishnah and Talmuds; dissension and conflicting opinions, debate (contray the Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility) are integral parts of understanding the God in Judaism.

Christianity, however (except for the previously noted exception of the Papacy, which is really a different animal altogehter) lacks a solid tradition of authority residing in the interpreters as well as the text being interpreted. So, my list of musts for good biblical interpretation, applying both to secular and Christian inquiry:

1) Must be conducted in the original language.

2) Must reflect an understanding of the process of canonization. That is, people like to just talk about "the Bible." As if there was such a thing as "the original text." Our Bible translations today (the good ones, anyway) reflect a history of picking and choosing from numerous ancient manuscripts which recensions seem best (that is, most probably reflecting the "original"). And, must reflect an knowledge of those religious works that were left out of the canon, and the motivations that went into those decisions.

3) Must be familiar with the cultures which produced the texts in question. For the New Testament, that involves an understanding of late Second Temple Judaism, some knowledge of early Rabbinics, a firm grounding in the history of Palestine in the Hellenic and Roman periods, and a solid knowledge of the crucial Greek influences on the New Testament author--most importantly Plato and the neo-platonic philosophers.

As for the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible, one should be well versed in Canaanite religion (especially through the texts of Ugarit) and its relation to the religion of the Israelites; also some knowledge of Sumerian, Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian), and Egyptian religious texts/

Jim

cont.

As for the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible, one should be well versed in Canaanite religion (especially through the texts of Ugarit) and its relation to the religion of the Israelites; also some knowledge of Sumerian, Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian), and Egyptian religious texts/ traditions. One should also have some knowledge of later Rabbinic works, especially (in my opinion) the Targums (early translations of biblical texts from Hebrew into Aramaic). Study in the original languages, and a little knowledge of semitic philology is preferable.

4) Avoid anachronism. The people writing these texts didn't know about gene splicing and DNA.

5) Honesty. Accept that the text doesn't literally say what you spiritually want it to say. (e.g. liberation theology lkes using the exodus story. An honest reading would reveal that the exodus story is by no means anti-slavery--in fact, it emphasizes Israel's role as God's slave, usually euphamized to "servant").

6) Interpreting for an agenda is bad interpretation. Interpretation is exegesis. When you start with an agenda, it devolves into eisegesis. If you then make assertions about what the text says, you're being dishonest. See #5.

Those are the biggies, I think.